MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4320003301 · doi:10.18280/mmep.090618

A Vis-NIRs Calibration Model for the Prediction of Myristicin and Alpha-Pinene on Nutmeg: A Comparison Study of PLSR Algorithm and Machine Learning Algorithm

2022· article· en· W4320003301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Devianti Devianti, Sufardi Sufardi, Yusmanizar Yusmanizar, Herbert Hasudungan Siahaan, Agustami Sitorus

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartial least squares regressionAlgorithmCalibrationKernel (algebra)Support vector machineMathematicsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determination of the myristicin and alpha-pinene content of nutmeg is still constrained by the extended testing time in the laboratory, which is expensive and is carried out destructively. In addition, non-destructive testing using spectroscopy often faces problems in building models that only rely on algorithms that perform linearly, such as PCR and PLSR. Therefore, the present study studied Vis-NIR (381-1065 nm) as a fast, inexpensive, and non-destructive mechanism to determine the myristicin and alpha-pinene of nutmeg fruits from Aceh, Indonesia. Two algorithms commonly used in spectral data processing, partial least squares regression (PLSR) and machine learning represented by a support vector machine (SVM), were employed and compared to predict myristicin and alpha-pinene in nutmeg fruits. The chemical reference parameters (myristicin and alpha-pinene) were measured using gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Standard normal variate (SNV) and multiplicative scatter correction (MSC) preprocessing were involved as spectra enhancement before the prediction models outcome. The results show that the kernel of the radial basis function (RBF) kernel n-SVM algorithm is better than PLSR for myristicin prediction with gamma (g), c, and nu (n) of 0.1, 1.0, and 0.99, respectively. Also, the e-SVM algorithm by RBF kernel is better than PLSR for the prediction of alpha-pinene in nutmeg fruits with gamma (g), c, and epsilon (e) compositions of 0.01, 10, 0.1, respectively. The coefficient correlation of calibration (rc) and coefficient determination of prediction (Rp2), the root means square error of calibration (RMSEC) and prediction (RMSEP), and the ratio (RPD) for the prediction of myristicin were 0.992, 0.986, 0.941%, 1.325% and 8.348, respectively. The coefficient correlation of calibration (rc) and coefficient determination of prediction (Rp2), the root mean square error of calibration (RMSEC) and prediction (RMSEP), and the ratio of prediction to deviation ratio (RPD) for the prediction of alpha-pinene were 0.976, 0.979, 0.305%, 0.317% and 6.826, respectively. In general, the results satisfactorily indicate that Vis-NIRS, with the appropriate algorithm, has promising results in determining myristicin and alpha-pinene on nutmeg from Aceh, Indonesia, as nondestructive measurement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems→Same topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities→French-language works237,207→