MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341523398 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.48.4.474

Effects of Preharvest Weather Conditions on Firmness of ‘McIntosh’ Apples at Harvest Time

2013· article· en· W2341523398 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maude Lachapelle, Gaétan Bourgeois, Jennifer R. DeEll

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsPreharvestMalusHarvest seasonHorticultureHarvest timeGrowing seasonBiologyAgronomyEnvironmental sciencePostharvest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apple fruit firmness is one of the main attributes indicating fruit quality at harvest. It is affected by numerous factors during the entire growing season. The effects of weather conditions during apple development are often mentioned as a result of their impact on attributes linked to fruit firmness: fruit size, calcium concentration, water content, etc. In this study, the effects of weather conditions on ‘McIntosh’ apple ( Malus × domestica Borkh. cv. McIntosh) firmness at harvest time were analyzed. Fruit were harvested at nine sites in Quebec and Ontario over 15 years (1996–2011). For each case, weather parameters were analyzed from full bloom until harvest, either in monthly subperiods from May until September or in terms of days from full bloom (DFB) until harvest. Regression results highlighted the negative effect of lower air temperature conditions from 31 to 60 DFB, higher air temperature conditions and precipitations from 61 to 90 DFB, and higher temperature conditions from 91 DFB until harvest on ‘McIntosh’ apple firmness level at harvest. Precipitation from 61 to 90 DFB alone explained 39% of ‘McIntosh’ apple firmness variation at harvest time. The prediction of apple firmness at harvest time could be helpful for producers to adjust their marketing and storage strategies according to apple quality level.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207