MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372352967 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.180215

Quality of Untraded Rattan Stem from Central Sulawesi (Indonesia) Based on the Morphology

2023· article· en· W4372352967 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Tanra Tellu, Wardah Wardah, Musdalifah Nurdin, Syech Zainal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirektorat Jenderal Pendidikan TinggiUniversitas Tadulako
KeywordsRattanQuality (philosophy)Morphology (biology)GeographyBotanyBiologyZoologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rattan is a non-timber forest product with great economic value.Therefore, this study aims to determine the quality of non-traded rattan from Central Sulawesi based on the morphological characters of the rods.It was carried out to choose alternative species of rattan suitable as raw materials to fulfill the increasing demand.A descriptive method was used with wet rattan specimens obtained from natural forests as study materials to determine the quality species and levels.Moreover, complete identification and determination of morphological characters were used to determine the specific species, while the quality was determined based on the internode length, diameter, cylindricity, color, groove depth (texture), and surface appearance of the rod.Data analysis was carried out using analysis of variance followed by a mean difference test, using the SPSS Version 21 program.The results showed that the morphological characters of the 10 rattan species were distinctively different, therefore, it was used as determinants of all variables studied.Based on the results, the non-traded rattan with a relatively similar quality as the favorite traded speciess include Calamus insignis, C. minahasae, C. koordersianus, C. leptostachyus, Daemonorops lamprolepsis, D. robusta and D. macroptera.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicImage Processing and 3D ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207