MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606089367 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2017-0013

Development of a predictive model for ‘Lapins’ sweet cherry dry matter content using a visible/near infrared spectrometer and its potential application to other cultivars.

2017· article· en· W2606089367 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
P.M.A. Toivonen, Adrian Batista, Brenda Lannard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsWind Energy Institute of CanadaThompson Rivers UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsDry matterCultivarHorticultureMathematicsChemistryAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work was conducted to determine if a useful model could be developed for a portable visible/near-infrared spectrometer for non-destructively predicting dry matter content in ‘Lapins’ and other cultivars of sweet cherries. Absorptions at a range of 948–957 nm (default selected by the instrument model-building program) or 858–1008 nm (user selected) were used to create models associating absorption values with actual measured dry matter contents of cherries. The best model was created using the user selected waveband and this model was determined to be highly predictive of dry matter, with a resolution of 0.5% dry matter content. External validation of this model was carried out using three different sweet cherry cultivars (Staccato™, Sentennial™, and Sovereign™) and the model was found to be robust, i.e., quite accurate in predicting dry matter content in these other cultivars, with R2 values of 0.96, 0.94, and 0.99, and root mean square error of prediction values of 0.51, 0.74, and 0.56, respectively. The results indicate that dry matter in sweet cherries can be predicted accurately and non-destructively using visible/near-infrared spectroscopy. In the case of the cherry cultivars tested in this paper, a model developed using ‘Lapins’ fruit was reliable in predicting dry matter in these other cultivars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207