Ionizing irradiation post-harvest processing of chestnuts: effects of gamma and e-beam technologies on physico-chemical parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chestnut fruit must be postharvest treated to meet the international fitossanitary regulations during exportation. Chemical fumigation with methyl bromide was the most common practice for elimination of insects in those fruits. Nevertheless, it is a toxic product for the operators and was recently banned by the european legislation (March 2010), following the international recommendations of Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting substances. Therefore, it becomes essential to find alternative preservation methodologies. Irradiation might be a good alternative; its use by several industries on different food products could confirm the viability of such treatment in chestnut fruits. The effects of storage time (0 and 30 days at 4 oC) and irradiation dose (gamma and e-beam) up to 3 kGy on physico-chemical parameters were evaluated. Those parameters included colour, texture, moisture, nutritional value, sugars, fatty acids and tocopherols [1-3]. After analysis of the results, it was observed that irradiation at up to 3 kGy did not affect the mentioned parameters, being more relevant the effects of storage time. Overall, the irradiation might be a promising alternative for post-harvest chestnuts processing, without altering the main physico-chemical characteristics. References [1] Antonio et al. Food Chem. Toxicol., 49 (2011) 1918-1923. [2] Fernandes et al. Food Chem. Toxicol. 49 (2011) 2429-2432. [3] Fernandes et al. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 10028–10033.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".