SENSORY DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS AND CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS AIDS IN THE CHOOSING OF APPLE GENOTYPES FOR PROCESSED PRODUCTS<sup>1</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A trained sensory panel developed a descriptive vocabulary and procedures to evaluate the fruit of 30 apple genotypes processed as apple pies. The sensory attributes included seven terms to quantify color and appearance, seven for flavor, and eight for texture. A generalized lattice design was used to select subsets of the genotypes for evaluation in the panel sessions. Genotype means were estimated for each descriptive term using Residual Maximum Likelihood (REML), from which sensory profiles were generated. Correspondence analysis was used to define distinct components of the sensory profiles, and then to select genotypes that were similar in sensory properties to the standard industry genotype for pie processing, Northern Spy. Correspondence analysis portrayed the principal associations among the 22 sensory terms and 30 apple genotypes in four dimensions. The combined sensory and statistical techniques revealed that one‐fifth of the apple selections have potential for processed products.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it