MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792036082 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n4p351

Separation of Cultivars of Soybeans by Chemometric Methods Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy

2018· article· en· W2792036082 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
João dos Santos Panero, Henrique Eduardo Bezerra Da Silva, Pedro S. Panero, Oscar José Smiderle, Francisco dos Santos Panero, Fernando S. E. D. V. Faria, Anselmo Fortunato Ruiz Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemometricsPrincipal component analysisCultivarSpectroscopyNear-infrared spectroscopyMathematicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryBiological systemChromatographyStatisticsBotanyOpticsBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Near Infrared (NIR) Spectroscopy technique combined with chemometrics methods were used to group and identify samples of different soy cultivars. Spectral data, collected in the range of 714 to 2500 nm (14000 to 4000 cm-1), were obtained from whole grains of four different soybean cultivars and were submitted to different types of pre-treatments. Chemometrics algorithms were applied to extract relevant information from the spectral data, to remove the anomalous samples and to group the samples. The best results were obtained considering the spectral range from 1900.6 to 2187.7 nm (5261.4 cm-1 to 4570.9 cm-1) and with spectral treatment using Multiplicative Signal Correction (MSC) + Baseline Correct (linear fit), what made it possible to the exploratory techniques Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) to separate the cultivars. Thus, the results demonstrate that NIR spectroscopy allied with de chemometrics techniques can provide a rapid, nondestructive and reliable method to distinguish different cultivars of soybeans.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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