Saccharinity Test on Cherry Tomatoes Based on Hyperspectral Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technique, this paper attempts to test the saccharinity of three varieties of cherry tomatoes in a nondestructive manner. The cherry tomato samples of the three varieties were collected, and kept at room temperature for 12h. Then, the spectral curves of the samples were obtained between the wavelengths of 914.91nm and 1,661.91nm. After that, the feature bands were extracted by three algorithms, namely, competitive adaptive reweighted sampling (CARS), successive projection algorithm (SPA) and SPA-CARS. The samples were divided into a correction dataset and a prediction dataset at the ratio of 2:1. Next, the feature bands extracted by the three algorithms were combined with the partial least squares (PLS) and least squares-support vector machine (LS-SVM) into six saccharinity prediction models. Finally, the prediction results of the six models were compared, revealing that the CARS-LS-SVM achieved the best performance with a prediction accuracy of >92%. The evaluation indices of this model are as follows: the correlation coefficient of correction dataset (R ), 0.9696; the correlation coefficient of prediction dataset (R ), 0.9220; the root mean square error of correction dataset (RMSEC), 0.2768; the root mean square error of prediction dataset (RMSEP), 0.4390. The research results lay the basis for industrial grading of saccharinity of cherry tomatoes in a nondestructive manner.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".