MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297574389 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v5n2p23

Effect of Calcium Chloride and Hydrocooling on Postharvest Quality of Selected Vegetables

2016· article· en· W2297574389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joyce Chepngeno, Willis Owino, John Kinyuru, N. Nenguwo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation
KeywordsPostharvestTitratable acidChemistryCalciumRelative humidityHorticultureChlorideAnimal scienceFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Precooling and postharvest application of calcium chloride (CaCl<sub>2</sub>) on produce has positive effects in maintaining the produce quality during storage. However, there is variation in the response of the produce to different CaCl<sub>2 </sub>concentrations<sub>. </sub>As a result, there is need to establish optimal concentrations of calcium chloride that can extend postharvest life of targeted produce. Fresh good quality produce (tomatoes, carrots, courgettes and African eggplants) of uniform size and maturity were harvested and sampled into four portions. One was a control, hydrocooled with water only at 2±1 <sup>0</sup>C and the others were hydrocooled with water containing CaCl<sub>2</sub> at 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5%. After hydrocooling, tomatoes, African eggplants and courgettes were stored at 10 <sup>0</sup>C, while carrots were stored at 7 <sup>0</sup>C, all at 95% constant relative humidity, and sampled every two days for quality assessment. Weight loss, chilling injury, vitamin c and beta-carotene loss were reduced by application of calcium chloride. Titratable acidity decrease and increase in total soluble solids and specific sugars was also slowed by application of CaCl<sub>2</sub>.</p>

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207