MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972732255 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.12292

Effects of light exposure on chlorophyll, sugars and vitamin <scp>C</scp> content of fresh‐cut celery (<i><scp>A</scp>pium graveolens</i> var. dulce) petioles

2013· article· en· W1972732255 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lijuan Zhan, Jinqiang Hu, Lingyun Pang, Li Yu, Jianfeng Shao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsDarknessSucroseSugarVitamin CReducing sugarDry matterAscorbic acidBotanyChemistryHorticultureChlorophyllFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Effects of light exposure (24 μmol m−2 s−1) on fresh‐cut celery nutritional quality were evaluated during 8‐day storage at 7 °C using darkness as control. Light exposure preserved 47% chlorophyll a and 48% chlorophyll b contents more than darkness at the end of storage. Sucrose, reducing sugar and glucose contents in light‐stored petioles were 17%, 25% and 67% higher than those in dark‐stored petioles after 8‐day storage, respectively, thus resulting in higher total soluble solids content in light condition. Moreover, l‐ascorbic acid content increased at 2‐day storage in light condition and was 46% more than in darkness at the end of storage. The fresh weight loss significantly increased in all petioles, and this increase was markedly accelerated by light exposure with a maximum of 1.43% at the end of storage. Dry matter content was induced more by light exposure than by darkness at 2‐day storage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207