MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2099571817 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n11p257

The Effects of Ripening and Cold Storage on the Volatile Profiles of Three Japanese Plum Cultivars (Prunus salicina Lindl.) and One Interspecific Plum-apricot Cultivar

2012· article· en· W2099571817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E.D. Louw, K.I. Theron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarPrunus salicinaFlavorCold storageHorticultureFlavourRipeningBotanyInterspecific competitionBiologyChemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volatile compounds contribute greatly to the flavour of fruit and can be altered by maturity and cold storage. The volatiles of three Japanese plum cultivars (‘Sapphire’, ‘Songold’, and ‘Larry Anne’) and one plumcot (‘Flavor King’) were determined at three functional stages: commercial harvest, tree-ripened fruit and cold stored fruit. HS-SPME was used for extraction and GC-TOFMS for separation and identification. A total of 52 compounds was found and classified into three groups (‘unique’ (28), ‘generic’ (10) and ‘frequent’ (14)) based on frequency of occurrence. Discriminant analysis showed that the volatile profiles of the three functional stages were distinct within each cultivar, and the main contributors to the patterns were identified. The volatile profiles of ‘Larry Anne’ and ‘Flavor King’ were the most affected by cold storage conditions. Inter-cultivar analysis indicated that the cultivars have different volatile profiles at each of the functional groups with ‘Larry Anne’ and ‘Flavor King’ showing the largest differences. ‘Flavor King’, a plumcot, presented a ripe volatile profile that was much diverged from that of the true plums.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Science→Same topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies→French-language works237,207→