MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187714035 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.37.7.1127

Use of Digital Images for Evaluation of Factors Responsible for Visual Preference of Apples by Consumers

2002· article· en· W2187714035 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret A. Cliff, K.A. Sanford, Wendy V. Wismer, C.R. Hampson

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCollege of the North AtlanticAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalusPreferenceNova scotiaMathematicsHorticultureGeographyBiologyStatisticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research used digital images to explore some of the factors responsible for consumer preference of visual characteristics of apples ( Malus × domestica Borkh.). The images systematically varied in color and shape (Expt. A: 9 images) and type, shape, and background color (Expt. B: 10 images), while keeping apple size constant. Visual assessments of the apple images were collected from 144 consumers (Expt. A) and 165 consumers (Expt. B) in British Columbia (BC), Nova Scotia (NS), and New Zealand (NZ) using balanced incomplete block designs. Canadian consumers (BC and NS) preferred red apples over green or yellow. NZ consumers liked equally red and green apples, and preferred both to yellow apples. At all locations, consumers in Expt. A significantly preferred round and conical shaped apples to oblong apples. When the combined effects of type, shape, and background color were evaluated, NZ consumers rated the striped, round apples the highest, and least preferred both round and oblong, blush-type apples with yellow backgrounds. NS consumers tended to prefer blush apples regardless of type and background color, and BC consumers were more accepting of a range of apple types, shapes, and background colors.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.033 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations47
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsFrench-language works237,207