MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040799232 · doi:10.1021/jf801887w

Evaluation of Saskatoon Berry (Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt.) Cultivars for their Polyphenol Content, Antioxidant Properties, and Storage Stability

2008· article· en· W2040799232 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Bąkowska-Barczak, Paul Kolodziejczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsOlds College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarPolyphenolDPPHABTSAnthocyaninBerryHorticultureChemistryBotanyAntioxidantBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The polyphenol contents and antioxidant activities were assessed for 17 Saskatoon berry cultivars grown in Canada in fresh and stored fruits at -20 degrees C for 9 months. The Nelson cultivar was the richest in total polyphenol, anthocyanin, and procyanidin contents (801, 382, and 278 mg/100 g fresh weight, respectively). This cultivar was characterized also by the highest antioxidant potential measured with DPPH and ABTS radicals (2.8 and 5.0 mM/100 g FW, respectively). Cultivar-dependent changes in polyphenol content after freezer storage were observed. In the Lee 2 cultivar, significant increases in anthocyanin and flavonol contents occurred, while in the Lee 3 and Martin cultivars considerable decreases were observed. During the freezer storage, the antioxidant activity remained unchanged except for the Smokey which showed to be the most sensitive cultivar during storage. The Nelson and Lee 2 were the most stable cultivars during storage. The high polyphenol content and antioxidant activity of the Nelson cultivar and its good storage stability would make this cultivar the optimal material for fruit growers and food producers.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207