Phenolic compounds profile, carbohydrates and external fruit quality of the ‘Concorde’ pear (<i>Pyrus communis</i>L.) after bagging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hudina, M., Stampar, F., Orazem, P., Mikulic Petkovsek, M. and Veberic, R. 2012. Phenolic compounds profile, carbohydrates and external fruit quality of the 'Concorde' pear ( Pyrus communis L.) after bagging. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 67–75. The practice of pre-harvest bagging has been extensively used in several fruit crops to improve the commercial value of the fruit. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of fruit bagging on internal and external quality of the European pear (Pyrus communis L.) cv. ‘Concorde’. Fruit quality was determined by chemical analyses (individual sugars, organic acids and phenolic compounds) and physical characteristics in 2005 and 2006. Bagging of pear fruit after June drop until harvest significantly reduced fruit length in both observed years. Fruit bagging resulted in increased firmness of the fruit only in 2006. Soluble solids content was significantly lower in bagged fruit in 2006. In 2005, bagging had no influence on firmness and soluble solids content. Bagging improved fruit surface lightness, since L* was higher in the bagged than in the control fruit in both years. Also the a* parameter was higher in bagged fruit. We noted significant influence of bagging on total sugars content. Bagging European pear fruit decreased the content of phenolic compounds in skin (catechin, chlorogenic acid, epicatechin, p-coumaric acid, quercetin 3-O-galactoside, quercetin 3-O-glucoside, quercetin 3-O-rhamnoside). The removal of bags 7 d before harvest significantly increased glucose, shikimic and fumaric 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".