MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272792680 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.3.407d

108 Maintaining Postharvest Quality of Mango Fruit with Methyl Jasmonate

2000· article· en· W2272792680 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo A. González‐Aguilar, J. G. Buta, C.Y. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMangiferaPostharvestShelf lifeRipeningMethyl jasmonateSugarHorticultureReducing sugarChemistryCold storageBotanyFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of mango ( Mangifera indica cv Kent) with methyl jasmonate (MJ) vapor for 20 h at 20 °C was effective in reducing chilling injury (CI) symptoms and decay, and enhancing skin color development. MJ (10-4 M) was the most effective concentration for reducing CI and decay in fruit stored at 5 °C followed by 7 days at 20 °C (shelf life period). The use of 10-5 M MJ enhanced yellow and red color development of mango kept at 20 °C. These fruit possessed higher L * , a * and b * values than controls and those treated with 10-4 M MJ. Ripening processes were inhibited by cold storage in control fruits. After cold storage (5 °C) and the shelf life period, fruit treated with 10-5 M MJ fruit ripened normally and contained the highest total soluble solids (TSS). These fruit maintained higher sugar and organic acid levels than those in other treatments. We concluded that MJ treatment could be used to reduce decay and CI symptoms, and also to improve color development of mango fruit without adversely affecting quality.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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