MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902969155 · doi:10.21273/jashs04504-18

Evaluation of Carbohydrate Concentrations in Phalaenopsis Using Near-infrared Spectroscopy

2018· article· en· W2902969155 on OpenAlexaff
Yung‐Kun Chuang, I‐Chang Yang, Chao-Yin Tsai, Jiunn-Yan Hou, Yung-Huei Chang, Suming Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Taiwan UniversityMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanNational Science Council
KeywordsCalibrationStarchSucroseFructoseCoefficient of determinationChemistryPhalaenopsisDerivative (finance)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Correlation coefficientNear-infrared spectroscopySecond derivativeMathematicsBotanyChromatographyFood scienceBiologyPhysicsStatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbohydrate concentrations are important indicators of the internal quality of Phalaenopsis . In this study, near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy was used for quantitative analyses of fructose, glucose, sucrose, and starch in Phalaenopsis plants. Both modified partial least-squares regression (MPLSR) and stepwise multiple linear regression (SMLR) methods were used for spectral analysis of 302 Phalaenopsis samples in the full visible NIR wavelength range (400–2498 nm). Calibration models built by MPLSR were better than those built by SMLR. For fructose, the smoothed first derivative MPLSR model provided the best results, with a correlation coefficient of calibration (R c ) of 0.96, standard error of calibration (SEC) of 0.22% dry weight (DW), standard error of validation (SEV) of 0.28% DW, and bias of -0.01% DW. For glucose, the MPLSR model based on the smoothed first derivative spectra was the best (R c = 0.96; SEC = 0.26% DW; SEV = 0.32% DW; and bias = 0.01% DW). The best MPLSR model of sucrose was developed using the smoothed first derivative spectra (R c = 0.96; SEC = 0.24% DW; SEV = 0.31% DW; bias = -0.03% DW). Regarding starch, the smoothed first derivative MPLSR model showed the best effects (R c = 0.91; SEC = 0.47% DW; SEV = 0.56% DW; bias = -0.02% DW). Both the MPLSR and SMLR models showed satisfactory predictability, indicating that NIR has the potential to be adopted as an effective method of rapid and accurate inspection of the carbohydrate concentrations of Phalaenopsis plants. This technique could contribute substantially to quality management of Phalaenopsis .

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural ScienceSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207