Comparative Relationship of Fiber Strength and Yarn Tenacity in Four Cotton Cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="1Body">High volume instrumentation (HVI<sup>TM</sup>) measurement is a primary and routine tool of providing fiber properties to cotton researchers. There have been considerable studies designed to derive yarn quality from acquired fiber quality data by various means, including HVI. There is also of desired information about the comparison of yarn quality within a cotton cultivar or among the cultivars, as such knowledge could be informative in attempts to understand the selection of cotton cultivars. The purpose of this preliminary study was to characterize the fiber HVI strength and yarn skein tenacity of four cotton cultivar harvested from three locations in different crop years. Instead of developing linear regression models from acquired fiber property parameters to predict yarn tenacity, this study applied a simple ratio method (i.e., correct fiber strength or yarn tenacity with fiber micronaire component) to relate fiber strength with yarn tenacity. The results indicate that three cultivars (DP 393, Phytogen 72, and FM 958) show stronger correlation between micronaire corrected yarn tenacity and micronaire corrected fiber HVI strength. It implies the feasibility of utilizing HVI fiber micronaire and strength property data, as a semi-quantitative and fast tool, to compare the yarn tenacity performance within a cotton cultivar or between cultivars.</p>
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 | 0.023 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".