MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480898558 · doi:10.1201/b10744-1

Front Matter

2006· paratext· en· W2480898558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iris E. Peralta, David M. Spooner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFront (military)GeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tomatoes rank fourth among the leading world vegetables. In 2001, over 100 million metric tons were produced, with the 15 leading countries being (in descending order) China, US, India, Turkey, Egypt, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico, Greece, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Chile, and Uzbekistan ( FAO 2002 ; Fig. 1.1 ). There has been a general upward trend in tomato production during the period 1992–2002 ( Fig. 1.2 ). Interestingly, the countries that produce higher yields ( Fig. 1.3 ) do not possess the ideal climate for the tomato crop and have less land area devoted to tomato production ( Fig. 1.4 ). Northern European countries, as well as Canada and New Zealand, produce most of their tomatoes under controlled greenhouse conditions. Tomato consumption has also shown a general increased trend of consumption over a period of time ( FAO 2002 ). Tomatoes supply a mean of 12.1 kg/cap/yr, and tomato consumption is higher in Mediterranean and Arab countries (usually between 40 and 60 kg/cap/yr). Tomatoes are highly popular in Egypt, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and United Arab Emirates (60–70 kg/cap/yr), whereas people from Greece and Libya have the highest preference consuming more than 100 kg of tomatoes per capita and year. Tomatoes are also a popular food in Latin and North America. Fig. 1.1 Tomato production worldwide, 2001. https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429063671/e7aeba4a-28c6-4fe4-992f-c8d2fb8975d8/content/fig1_1.tif"/> Fig. 1.2 Tomato production worldwide, 1992–2001. https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429063671/e7aeba4a-28c6-4fe4-992f-c8d2fb8975d8/content/fig1_2.tif"/> Fig. 1.3 Tomato yield worldwide, 2001. https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429063671/e7aeba4a-28c6-4fe4-992f-c8d2fb8975d8/content/fig1_3.tif"/> Fig. 1.4 Area of tomato harvest worldwide, 2001. https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429063671/e7aeba4a-28c6-4fe4-992f-c8d2fb8975d8/content/fig1_4.tif"/>

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8530.809

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations70
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207