MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction of the Flowering and Ripening Time of Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) Cultivars in Estonia by Using the K-Means Clustering Method

2023· preprint· en· W4387120212 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Natallia Klakotskaya, Peeter Laurson, A. Libek, A. Kikas

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Rural Affairs
KeywordsCultivarRipeningFragariaPhenologyHorticultureCluster analysisBiologyBotanyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finding the ideal statistical method for grouping phenological data is always an important step for breeders to draw correct conclusions from it possibly. In this paper, K-cluster analysis is presented as a perfect tool for grouping phenological data. The present research was performed based on the phenological data of 61 strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa) cultivars of different geo-graphical origins grown in Estonian conditions. Groups of strawberry cultivars were deter-mined according to flowering and ripening time: early, middle and late, based on the sum of ef-fective temperatures above +5°C. The result of the K-cluster analysis carried out in this way makes it possible to precisely plan the ripening time of berries of different strawberry cultivars. Using such analysis data, it is possible to combine with different early, mid or late strawberry cultivars to extend the picking period. Also, this technique can be used to study the effect of cli-matic changes occurring over the years on the phenology of strawberry cultivars grown in the region.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207