MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100043570 · doi:10.1080/01140671.2003.9514234

Modelling of colour development in the fruit of <i>Actinidia chinensis</i> ‘Hort16A’

2003· article· en· W2100043570 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P. E. H. MINCHIN, N. De Silva, W. P. Snelgar, A.C. Richardson, T.G. Thorp

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsHueFleshMathematicsHorticultureActinidia chinensisCultivarBotanyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Colour development in fruit of Actinidia chinensis var. chinensis ‘Hort16A’, the new yellow‐fleshed cultivar produced commercially in New Zealand, was monitored during three seasons in four kiwifruit‐producing districts of New Zealand. Fruit were destructively harvested to measure flesh colour between flowering and harvest. Flesh colour of the outer pericarp remained green (115° hue angle) until c. 140 days after mid bloom (DAMB). Then flesh colour changed following a sigmoid like pattern to a yellow hue (97–100° hue angle) by 220 DAMB. The change in hue angle is shown to be well represented by the complementary log‐log function. The scale parameter describing this transition was independent of site and season, whereas timing of the transition between the upper and lower asymptote was dependant on both site and season because of a small dependence on the average of the maximum temperature over the period of 100–150 DAMB. Each degree C increase in maximum temperature during the 100–150 DAMB delays colour development by c. 3 days. Distribution of individual hue angles about the mean value was best described by a constrained beta distribution defined by two parameters, which in turn uniquely specify the average hue angle and variance of the population at that time. For hue angles near the mid range, which occurs before harvest maturity, this beta distribution is well approximated by a Normal distribution with the same mean and variance, but at harvest maturity a beta distribution is a better description. When the average hue angle is 103°, the difference between the 97.5 percentile on the Normal approximation and the beta distribution is c. 0.6. This difference rises rapidly as the hue angle drops further.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural ScienceSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207