Performance Evaluation of Pre-Processing and Pre-Treatment Algorithm for Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Signals: Case Study pH of Intact Mango “Arumanis”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
pH is one of the important physical parameters to characterize mango damage because it can indicate changes in the structure and chemical content of the fruit. Thus, the present work evaluated the possibility of NIRs as a rapid and non-destructive tool for measuring the pH properties of intact mango from the cultivar "Arumanis" (Mangifera indica L.) using several algorithms for pre-processing, pre-treatment, and prediction. Three different algorithm predictions, namely principal component regression (PCR), partial least squares regression (PLSR), and support vector machine regression (SVMR), were used and compared to predict the pH of mangos. A total of 16 pre-processing and pre-treatment algorithms are used to support algorithm prediction, and the results are also compared with the raw data spectra. The NIR spectral data used range from 1000 to 2500 nm. Algorithm performance will be evaluated using RMSE, error differences and concluded using RPD. The results show that the prediction of the PLSR algorithm can be performed with an RPD of 8.17, which is more significant than the PCR and SVMR algorithms, which are 1.04, and 1.90, respectively. To support this, pre-processing and pretreatment of the second derivative Savitzky–Golay is the best algorithm that can be used to predict the pH of the whole mango cultivar "Arumanis".
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".