MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062983149 · doi:10.4141/p99-129

Efficacy of low O<sub>2</sub> and high CO<sub>2</sub> atmospheres in maintaining the postharvest quality of saskatoon fruit (<i>Amelanchier alnifolia</i> Nutt.)

2000· article· en· W2062983149 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Suzy Y. Rogiers, N. Richard Knowles

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPostharvestTitratable acidHorticultureCultivarModified atmosphereControlled atmosphereBerryChemistryCold storageBotanyBiologyFood scienceShelf life

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in fruit quality of saskatoon (cvs. Pembina, Smoky, Northline, and Thiessen) stored under three O2 levels (2, 10, and 21%) factorially combined with two CO2 concentrations (0.035% and 5%) were assessed during 56 d of storage at 0.5 °C. The 5% CO2 atmosphere combined with 21 or 10% O2 was most effective at minimizing losses in fruit soluble solids, anthocyanins, firmness, and fresh weight. Fungal colonization of fruit after 8 wk of storage was eliminated in 5% CO2 at all O2 concentrations. Storage of fruit in 0.035% CO2 and 21 or 10% O2 resulted in the highest titratable acidity and lowest ethanol concentrations. Ethanol did not exceed 0.03% in fruit stored in any of the atmospheres. While changes in some of the quality characteristics of fruit during storage were cultivar dependent, differences among cultivars were small, and all four cultivars benefited from controlled atmosphere storage. Key words:Amelanchier alnifolia, saskatoon fruit, controlled atmosphere, postharvest quality

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207