The Effect of Aminoethoxyvinylglycine and Dynamic Controlled Atmosphere on the Storage of ‘Bartlett’ Pear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Storage trials of 4 and 8 months’ duration, using ‘Bartlett’ pear (Pyrus communis) fruit treated with and without aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) and stored using ultra low oxygen (ULO) storage (1.5 kPa O2) versus dynamic controlled atmosphere (DCA) (≈ 0.6–0.7 kPa O2) based on chlorophyll fluorescence were conducted over 2 years. AVG applied preharvest and DCA storage produced pears with significantly lower respiration, ethylene, acetaldehyde, ethyl acetate and ethanol post-storage compared to the other treatment combinations. Lower volatiles reflected a higher level of fruit quality. AVG + DCA also exhibited greater green color and firmness retention than the other treatment combinations. There were few disorders in both years of study, with no correlation with field and storage treatments, with the exception of pear scuffing, which was only present in year 2. The incidence of scuffing was positively associated with both fruit softening and yellowing, with DCA + AVG showing the lowest incidence (10%) and ULO + control, the highest (65%). Softening occurred during the shelf life period, as required, and was not an issue for any treatment combination. However, uneven degreening was a concern for fruit treated with DCA + AVG (mainly when firmness at harvest was > 85 N). Future research on higher maturity levels at harvest or reduced AVG rates could address this concern.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".