MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Jasmine Flower Color Degradation User-Coded Computer Vision Image Analysis Tool and Kinetics Modeling

2025· article· en· W4411329762 on OpenAlexaff
Humeera Tazeen, Anne Joice, Talha Tufaique, C. Igathinathane, Ademola Ajayi-Banji, Zhao Zhang, Craig W. Whippo, Drew A. Scott, John Hendrickson, David W. Archer, Lester O. Pordesimo, S. Sokhansanj

Bibliographic record

VenueAgriEngineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsDegradation (telecommunications)Computer scienceImage (mathematics)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jasmine (Jasminum sambac (L.) Ait.) flowers, valued for their fragrance and essential oils, are extensively used in the flavor, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical industries. However, their useful life is short due to rapid color degradation and browning caused by photo-oxidative stress induced by environmental factors like light, temperature, and humidity. Therefore, the significant reduction in the visual appeal, quality, and economic value necessitates the measurement of temporal color degradation to evaluate the shelf life for jasmine flowers. A developed open-source ImageJ plugin program quantified the color degradation of jasmine petals and pedicles over 25 h. Petal area (>19 mm2) cutoff separated the pedicles. Color degradation kinetics models, including zeroth-order, first-order, exponential decay, Page, and Peleg, using several color indices, were developed, and their performances were evaluated. VEG, hue, chroma, COM, and CIVE color indices were found suitable for kinetics modeling. Peleg and Page models (R2≥0.99) are suitable for petals and pedicles, respectively. Jasmine petals retained their color integrity for longer periods than pedicles. This study underscores the potential of computer vision analysis and kinetic modeling for evaluating flower quality after harvest. The color degradation dynamics were accurately characterized by the kinetic models, which provide actionable insights for optimizing storage and handling practices.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgriEngineeringSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207