MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111114256 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.7.1283

Volatile Emissions and Chlorophyll Fluorescence as Indicators of Freezing Injury in Apple Fruit

2000· article· en· W2111114256 on OpenAlexaff
Charles F. Forney, Michael Jordan, K.U.K.G. Nicholas, Jennifer R. DeEll

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrowningFleshChemistryEthyl acetateEthyleneMalusTitratable acidEthanolChlorophyll fluorescenceHorticultureChlorophyllRosaceaeBotanyFood scienceBiologyChromatographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of volatile emissions and chlorophyll fluorescence as indicators of freezing injury were investigated for apple fruit ( Malus × domestica Borkh.). `Northern Spy' and `Delicious' apples were kept at -8.5 °C for 0, 6, or 24 h, and then at 20 °C. After 1, 2, 5, and 7 d at 20 °C, fruit were analyzed for firmness, skin and flesh browning, soluble solid content, titratable acidity, ethanol, ethyl acetate, ethylene, respiration rate, and chlorophyll fluorescence. Freezing caused skin and flesh browning and a loss of fruit firmness, which was greater in `Northern Spy' than in `Delicious'. In `Northern Spy' fruit subjected to the freezing treatments, ethanol and ethyl acetate concentrations were as much as 37- and 300-fold greater, respectively, than in control fruit. `Delicious' fruit showed similar patterns of ethanol and ethyl acetate increase, but of lower magnitude, as a result of freezing. Higher fruit respiratory quotients were associated with increased ethanol and ethyl acetate concentrations. Ethylene production and chlorophyll fluorescence of fruit were reduced by freezing.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207