MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081181929 · doi:10.5747/ca.2020.v16.n4.a379

Antioxidant profile of Canada lettuce (Lactuca canadensis) and madeira vine (Anredera cordifolia) minimally processed

2020· article· en· W3081181929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vinícius Tadeu da Veiga Correia, Danielle Fátima D’Angelis, Luma Moura Brito, Jéssica Letícia Abreu Martins, Ernani Clarete da Silva, Lanamar de Almeida Carlos

Bibliographic record

VenueColloquium Agrariae · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTitratable acidLactucaChemistryFood scienceAntioxidantCarotenoidBrixVitamin CLightnessHorticultureBotanyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to evaluate the stability of natural antioxidants in minimally processed Anredera cordifoliaand Lactuca canadensisand their physical-chemical and antioxidant characteristics at time zero of storage (T0) and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 days, at a temperature of 7 °C. For the attribute color, L. canadensisdid not show significant differences between the parameters, whereas A. cordifoliashowed variation in its lightness from the third day of storage. Both vegetables had significant increments of pH, which ranged from 5.77 to 6.16 in A. cordifoliaand from 6.23 to 6.43 in L. canadensis. The contents of soluble solids also increased significantly, from 2.28 to 4.17 °Brix and from 4.89 to 6.30 °Brix in A. cordifoliaand L. canadensis, respectively. No significant difference was observed in total titratable acidity at any of the times evaluated (p>0.05). Among the bioactive compounds of the minimally processed vegetables, the contents of carotenoids, tannins, and total phenolic compounds were affected by storage, demonstrating that this process has an influence on the concentrations of the natural antioxidants studied.

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 score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueColloquium AgrariaeSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207