MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586974322 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.39.4.807b

Glycoalkaloid and Chlorophyll Changes in Eight Potato Varieties Exposed to Light

2004· article· en· W2586974322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francine Dickie, Ron Voss, Gyunghoon Hong, Marita Cantwell

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPotato Plant Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycoalkaloidHorticultureCultivarChlorophyllBotanyChemistryFluorescent lightBiologySolanaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red and white skin potatoes (`Cal Red', `Cal White', `Durango', VC1015, `Yukon Gold', `Latona', A94381, and `Satina') were harvested from plots in commercial fields in Kern and San Joaquin Counties and at the Univ. California Research Center at Tulelake. After washing and sorting, potatoes were held in plastic trays in the dark (black plastic bags) or exposed to light (90 cm below cool-white fluorescent GE Watt-Miser 34W bulbs, ≈1300 lux) at 20 °C. After 0, 3, 6 and 9 days, potatoes were scored for appearance of greening (1 to 5 scale), evaluated for external color (L * a * b * color values), skin chlorophyll concentration, and glycoalkaloid concentrations. For the latter, freeze-dried slices of tuber were extracted and analyzed by colorimetry and HPLC for alpha-solanine and alpha-chaconine. Initial glycoalkaloid concentrations varied among cultivars, with `Cal Red' consistently having the highest concentrations. Tubers stored in the dark had no or a slight increase in glycoalkaloid concentrations. Light exposure resulted in increased glycoalkaloid concentrations in all cultivars, but to varying degrees. Some varieties had negligible changes while others increased as much as eightfold. The average increase was 300%. Generally, `Cal White' had the largest light-induced increases in glycoalkaloids.

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 score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPotato Plant ResearchFrench-language works237,207