MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099096496 · doi:10.4141/p05-232

Primary metabolites in the leaves and fruits of three pear cultivars during the growing season

2007· article· en· W2099096496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Hudina, M. Colarič, Franci Štampar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistrstvo za visoko šolstvo, znanost in tehnologijo
KeywordsSucroseFructoseSugarCultivarSorbitolPEARPrimary metabolitePyrus communisHorticultureBotanyMalusChemistryGrowing seasonBiologyFood scienceMetaboliteBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary metabolites (sugars and organic acids) in leaves and fruits of the pear cultivars Conference, Concorde and Williams were investigated during the growing season in Slovenia. Leaves were sampled 15 times from Apr. 25 to Oct. 22. Fruits were sampled seven times from Jun. 14 to Aug. 23. The contents of sugars (glucose, fructose, sucrose, and sorbitol) and organic acids (malic, citric, shikimic, and fumaric) in leaves and fruit were determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Similar dynamic patterns were found in the glucose, fructose, sucrose and sorbitol in leaves and fruits of the genetically related cultivars Conference and Concorde. Leaf sugar was low at the beginning of the growing season when the leaves were not completely developed. Generally when sucrose increased in leaves it decreased in fruits. At the end of June the total sugar content in leaves reached its peak then rapidly decreased. At the same time, total sugar in fruits increased. From the beginning of August, total sugars in fruits increased regardless of the sugar content in leaves and likely due to decomposition of starch. After harvest, the contents of individual sugars (glucose, fructose, sucrose, and sorbitol) in the leaves decreased until the beginning of October when, just prior to leaf drop, they increased in all cultivars. Key words: Pyrus communis, sugars, organic acids

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207