MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084167732 · doi:10.1139/x05-046

NIR spectral information used to predict water content of pine seeds from multivariate calibration

2005· article· en· W2084167732 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Torbjörn A. Lestander, Paul Geladi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsCalibrationMultivariate statisticsWater contentPartial least squares regressionContent (measure theory)Spectral lineChemistryDegree (music)CanopyBiological systemMathematicsBotanyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)HorticultureEnvironmental chemistryStatisticsBiologyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is possible to predict the water content (6%–32%) of pine seeds — single seeds at 30 degree-days and bulk samples at 45 degree-days — using multivariate calibration models based on the near infrared (NIR) spectra (1100–2200 nm) of the seeds. One would expect the water peaks in the NIR spectra to contribute uniquely to the models, but this is not entirely the case. Different ways of studying models and spectra reveal that the contribution of the spectral information to the calibration models is complicated and nonlinear. Model parameters also show contributions from the biological processes in the seeds. Regression models between water content and NIR spectra using biorthogonal partial least squares (BPLS) showed that water content was associated with overtones of H–O–H, mainly around the peak of water at 1930–1940 nm, as expected. However, overtones of C–H, C=O, and N–H also influenced the BPLS models. This was caused by evolving biological phenomena, such as respiration and protein metabolism in imbibed seeds, and hence gave more complex regression models of seed–water interaction. There was also a difference in N–H absorption that indicated enhanced protein metabolism at prolonged degree-days.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207