MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989725627 · doi:10.5539/jas.v2n2p214

The Drying Effect of Varying Light Frequencies on the Proximate and Microbial Composition of Tomato

2010· article· en· W1989725627 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olatunji Matthew Kolawole, R. M. O. Kayode, J. O. Aina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood spoilageFood scienceSugarTotal Viable CountMicrococcus luteusHorticultureChemistryComposition (language)BotanyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tomato samples were dried at different frequency of light using clothes of different colours with wooden dryingfabrication. The proximate composition and microbial count of the Tomato fruits were determined. Resultsshowed that temperature and relative humidity of the environment affected the rate of drying of tomato as wellas the growth of spoilage organisms in the fruits. Highest temperature values of tomato was observed in thecontrol and light red colour frequency which also had a slightly lower average bacterial count (53 × 103 cfu/g and62 × 103 cfu/g) respectively. The light purple colour had highest average bacterial count of 96 × 103 cfu/g whichwas significantly higher (P<0.05) compared with the control and other colour frequency. Tomato dried with lightgreen colour frequency had the highest amount of protein and carbohydrate (13.78% and 51.37%, respectively).Dark blue colour had the highest amount of fat (0.97%), light blue colour had the highest fibre (25.30%), whilethe highest percentage of ash was observed in black colour (54.30%). All data from the colour frequencies weresignificantly different (higher or lower) from the control at (P<0.05). Microorganisms isolated from tomato fruitduring drying were: Erwinia carotovora, Proteus sp, Bacillus sp, Micrococcus luteus, Aspergillus sp, Aspergillusniger, Rhizopus stolonifer, and Penicillium chrysogenum.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207