MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104997652 · doi:10.4141/p06-113

Antioxidant capacity in June-bearing and day-neutral strawberry

2006· article· en· W2104997652 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shahrokh Khanizadeh, Behrouz Ehsani‐Moghaddam, A. Levasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroloxAntioxidantTrolox equivalent antioxidant capacityCultivarAntioxidant capacityFragariaChemistryFood scienceBotanyHorticultureBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was carried out to estimate the crude, hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidant content of known and new advanced selections among June-bearing and day-neutral genotypes using Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity method. Crude, hydrophilic and lipophilic extractions were prepared using 25 g of frozen fruits from each sample. In June-bearing strawberries, significant differences were observed among crude, hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidant values of different selected genotypes. Mean of crude, hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidants in June-bearings were estimated to be 20.4, 13.4 and 0.5 μmol TE g -1 FW, respectively, which were higher than those of the day-neutral genotypes (i.e., 13.2, 9.4 and 0.3 μmol TE g -1 FW). The present study revealed the importance of genetic background for determining the antioxidant potential in selected June-bearing genotypes and the possibility of production of new strawberry cultivars with higher levels of antioxidant capacity through breeding programs. Key words: Hydrophilic, lipophilic, total antioxidants, strawberry breeding, TEAC, Trolox

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 score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207