MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197078646 · doi:10.25177/jfst.6.2.ra.10747

The Effect of Field Heat Reduction Methods on Fresh and Processing Qualities of Red and Russet Potato Cultivars

2021· article· en· W3197078646 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sastry S. Jayanty, Esam Emragi, David G. Holm

Bibliographic record

VenueSDRP Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPotato Plant Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsFrench friesHorticultureCultivarChemistryWeight lossFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of three field heat reduction methods, including temperature lowering stepwise (TLS), temperature lowering gradually (TLG), and temperature lowering immediately (TLI), after harvesting on the quality of Russet Norkotah 3 and red skin numbered line CO 07102-1R potatoes were investigated. The tubers were analyzed at harvest (0 time), when they reached 3 °C, and after 6 months of storage at 3 °C for physiological weight loss, firmness, wound healing, total phenolics content, reducing sugars, and color of french fries. The results indicated that weight and firmness losses were lower under the TLS reduction method after 6 months of storage than TLG and TLI methods. The weight loss in TLS is 12%, TLG 14% and TLI 17% in CO 07102-1R whereas Russet Norkotah TLS is 4%, TLG 6%, and TLI 8% respectively. Wound healing was more effective using the TLS reduction method, especially in Russet Norkotah 3. French fry color was lighter at harvest (USDA grade 0), while there were no differences in the color of French fries prepared from tubers stored under the TLS and TLG methods (both had USDA grade 2). French fries were darker for tubers from the TLI method (USDA grade 4). The total phenolic content and reducing sugars were significantly increased in the TLI field heat reduction method. Keywords: Potato, Storage management, Wound healing, Weight loss, French fry

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSDRP Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicPotato Plant ResearchFrench-language works237,207