MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531336801 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.3.410e

125 Effect of Postharvest Curing on Respiration and Quality in Garlic Bulbs During Cold Storage

2000· article· en· W2531336801 on OpenAlexaff
Yichun Yang, K.A. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostharvestCuring (chemistry)HorticultureCold storageRespiration rateRespirationChemistryBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Garlic ( Allium stivum L. cv. `Seosan') grown in Kyungbuk, Korea were harvested on June 1999 and dried in the field for 2 to 3 days. Bulbs were selected for uniformity in size and maturity and divided into two groups. One group was further dried in the shade at 25 °C for curing before storage at 0 °C. The other group was stored at 0 °C immediately without additional drying. Respiration of garlic bulbs dried additionally for 3 months was low, ranging from 1.5 to 3.0 CO 2 mL/kg per h for 95 days in storage; ethylene was not detected until 60 days in storage. Non-curing samples showed rapid increase of carbon dioxide production after 50 days of storage, this might be related to incidence of fungal decay. Ethylene showed maximum value at 45 days in storage, thereafter remained level of 5.6-6.3 μL/kg per h. All treatments did not show sprouting during storage period, but incidence of decay was significantly reduced by additional drying. The beneficial effect of curing for 3 months at 25 °C was maintenance of low water content in garlic bulbs, which resulted in reduction of decay.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207