Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paper dealt with the evaluation of microstructure of the apple tissue. Apple cultivars Spartan, Jonathan, Ontario, Jonagored and Golden Delicious were studied. The samples of the apple tissues were cut of the thickness of 0.1 mm and the surface of the samples were scanned by means of the microscope with CCD chip and with 200 times magnification. The computer image processing was applied on the surface images of the tissue and the perimeter, area and circularity were determined. Analysis of variance was applied to evaluate significant variations of the average size of the cells perimeter, cells areas and cells circularities influenced by the apple variety. The apple cultivars had the significant influence on the size of the cell perimeter and the size of the cell area and had not significant influence on the cell circularity. The average shape of the cells creating the microstructure of the apple tissue of the all varieties was very similar. The average sizes of the cell perimeters and cell areas were different between cultivars Golden Delicious and Jonagored, Golden Delicious and Ontario, Jonathan and Jonagored and between Jonathan and Ontario. Cultivars Jonathan and Golden Delicious belong to one group and Jonagored and Ontario belong to different group with the similar sizes of the perimeters and areas of the cells. Cultivar Spartan belongs to the both mentioned groups and has similar sizes of the perimeters and areas of the cells.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".