MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EFFECT OF LIGHT SOURCE ON ACCEPTABILITY OF CITRUS FRUITS

2003· article· en· W2075779287 on OpenAlexaff
Shai Barbut

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Quality · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncandescent light bulbOrange (colour)ChemistryLuminanceOpticsHorticultureFood scienceBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The effect of three commonly used light sources on the color acceptability of oranges, lemons and limes was investigated. The color of the oranges under incandescent (INC) and metal halide (MH) lights was more preferred (P<0.05), by the panelists than when presented under fluorescent (FL). The main reason was the dull orange color seen under FL light. Relative luminance data, collected via a fiber optic probe connected to a photo diode array, demonstrated the reason to be insufficient red light reflected from oranges presented under FL. The yellow lemons were also preferred more under INC and MH than under FL: the latter resulted in a greenish tinge appearance. The color of the limes was more preferred under INC light than under FL, but preferred equally to the product presented under MH.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food QualitySame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207