MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990061985 · doi:10.1094/cchem-04-14-0087-r

Classification of Rice Based on Statistical Analysis of Pasting Properties and Apparent Amylose Content: The Case of <i>Oryza glaberrima</i> Accessions from Africa

2015· article· en· W1990061985 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Gayin, Gurpreet Kaur Chandi, John Manful, Koushik Seetharaman

Bibliographic record

VenueCereal Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyloseCultivarOryza sativaChemistryPopulationFood scienceHorticultureBotanyAgronomyBiologyStarch

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The diversity of 1,020 Oryza glaberrima rice accessions being kept at the Genetic Resources Unit of the Africa Rice Center with a varied range of apparent amylose content (AAC) and pasting properties was explored with cluster analysis. Rice cultivars are usually characterized according to grain dimensions, AACs, and gelatinization temperatures; however, this work focused on grouping African rice accessions based on their pasting properties and AAC. Using the Ward method of hierarchical cluster analysis, 1,020 rice accessions were initially distributed into five major clusters and further into 23 subclusters. The distribution pattern indicated that clusters I, II, III, IV, and V formed 27.6, 10.2, 15.8, 23.7, and 22.6% of the entire population, respectively. Although some of the groups had similar AAC, their pasting properties were very different, making it imperative for further investigations. Peak viscosity highly correlated ( P &lt; 0.01) with trough, breakdown, and final viscosities in all five clusters, whereas correlation between peak viscosity and AAC was not significant within clusters II and IV. Additionally, this categorization serves as a tool for exploring materials that can be employed in the development of rice cultivars for specific end uses.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCereal ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207