Brazilian Peach (Prunus Persica) and Passion Fruit (Passiflora Edulis) Nectars: Good Source of Vitamin C and Anthocyanins?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Peach and passion fruit nectars are well accepted by consumers and promise important sources of bioactive compounds. In this study it was analyzed vitamin C; anthocyanins; pH; total soluble solids; titratable acidity; total carbohydrates and <em>Ratio </em>(<em>Ratio</em> of total solids to citric acid) in different brands of peach and passion fruit nectar and results were compared to the Brazilian Legislation. Values of Vitamin C, anthocyanins, pH, soluble solids, titratable acidity, and total carbohydrates<em> </em>were analyzed. Results showed many variations in acidity, total soluble solids, carbohydrates and <em>Ratio</em> of nectars of the different brands. Peach and passion fruit nectars marketed in Brazil are good alternatives of ingesting vitamin C as all brands have more than 30% of the recommended daily intake, however, most brands possesses values much higher than stated on the labeling. For anthocyanins values, although there are patterns in Brazilian law, it can be seen from the results that there is great variation between the brands and some have very low values, indicating that the incorporation of this parameter on the labeling would be important once more aware and concerned consumers could choose the brand they thought most appropriate for their need. In conclusion it is possible to say the peach and passion fruit nectars marketed in Brazil are good alternatives of ingesting vitamin C as all brands have more than 30% of the recommended daily intake indicating they are considered “rich in vitamin C”. Although, in the other hand, brands of both flavors are found in amounts higher than stated on the labeling. Values of soluble solids, acidity in citric acid and total carbohydrates are according Brazilian Legislation. Values of<em> Ratio </em>indicate that the nectars analyzed are adequate according to acceptability parameters.</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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".