MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332259264 · doi:10.1021/jf1036678

Rapid Determination of Lignin Content of Straw Using Fourier Transform Mid-Infrared Spectroscopy

2010· article· en· W2332259264 on OpenAlexaff
Yukihiro Tamaki, Giuseppe Mazza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigninFourier transform infrared spectroscopyStrawInfrared spectroscopyInfraredFourier transform spectroscopyContent (measure theory)SpectroscopyFourier transformAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryMaterials scienceEnvironmental chemistryMathematicsOrganic chemistryChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine lignin content in triticale and wheat straws, calibration models were built using Fourier transform mid-infrared spectroscopy combined with partial least-squares regression. The best model for triticale and wheat straws was built using averaged spectra with raw spectrum in spectrum format and constant in path length as spectral pretreatments. The values of r(2), root-mean-square error of prediction (RMSEP), and residual predictive deviation (RPD) for the triticale straw model were 0.935, 0.305, and 3.89, respectively. The r(2), RMSEP, and RPD values for the wheat straw model were 0.985, 0.163, and 8.50, respectively. Both models showed good predictive ability. A model built using both triticale and wheat straws indicated that the values of r(2), RMSEP, and RPD were 0.952, 0.27, and 4.63, respectively. This model also showed good predictive ability and could predict lignin contents in triticale and wheat straws with the same high accuracy.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations64
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207