Characterizing the Frequency Distributions for Fruit Firmness of Sweet Cherry Cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fruit firmness is among the most important characteristics for the quality of sweet cherries. However, little has been published on its underlying frequency distribution. This research was undertaken to examine the firmness distributions (n = 48) from six cultivars [Sandra Rose, Summit, Lapins, Skeena, Sumtare (Sweetheart™), and 13S2009 (Staccato™)], two field treatments [with or without gibberellic acid (GA)], two storage times (0 and 7 days), and two growing seasons (2013 and 2014). Fruit was sampled (n = 300) at optimal maturity and firmness was evaluated using the FirmTech2 Fruit Firmness Tester. Firmness distributions were examined using descriptive statistics: mean, median, standard deviation ( sd ), minimum, maximum, range, skewness, and excess kurtosis. Nonnormality was assessed using skewness and kurtosis test statistics. Exponential models were fitted to the ascending and descending portions of the distributions and the proportion of “too soft” (percentage < 2.56 N·mm −1 ) and “too hard” (percentage > 4.71 N·mm −1 ) fruit was determined. A relatively high proportion of distributions were nonnormal (16/24 to 18/24), either skewed, peaked, or both. While most skewed distributions were skewed negatively, with a higher proportion of softer fruit, the distributions for ‘Sandra Rose’ were skewed positively, with a higher proportion of firmer fruit. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed seasonal, cultivar, treatment, and storage effects among three subsets of cultivars with differing characteristic firmness. The softer early-harvest cultivars (Sandra Rose and Summit) had a higher proportion of “too soft” fruit. GA and storage treatments increased mean firmness and reduced the proportion of “too soft” fruit. The firmer late-harvest cultivars (Skeena, Sumtare, and 13S2009) had a small proportion of “too hard” fruit (0% to 19.3%). The work gained insight into the nature of the firmness distributions for sweet cherries and the type of statistics that are most appropriate for analyzing the data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".