‘Honeycrisp’ Apple Maturity, Quality and StorageDisorders According to Interior and Exterior Tree CanopyPosition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apples are typically spot picked according to color and, therefore, indirectly according to canopy light exposure that affects fruit peel anthocyanins. We studied how interior and exterior canopy positions influenced fruit maturity and storage disorder incidence in ‘Honeycrisp’ apples grown in Maine (ME) USA, Minnesota (MN) USA and Ontario (ON) Canada, and harvested two to three times. Harvest maturity was more advanced in exterior compared with interior fruit. In both ME and ON, index of absorbance difference (IAD) was higher for interior fruit compared to exterior fruit. Starch pattern index (SPI) was lower in interior fruit in ME and ON during the first harvest, but not the later harvests, and not in MN where starch breakdown was advanced. Internal ethylene concentration (IEC) at harvest, measured in ON only, was lower in interior fruit during the first harvest, but no difference occurred between the two positions in the latter two harvests. After four months of cold storage plus 1- and 7-d shelf tests, IEC (measured in ON only) was lower in exterior fruit. In all three sites, soft scald, soggy breakdown and bitter pit incidence did not vary between the canopy positions. Fruit were not conditioned to 10 degrees C and stored at 0.5 °C to allow for full development of chilling injury disorders. Canopy position altered fruit maturation and quality with no significant effect on soft scald or bitter pit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".