MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7120702972

Passion-fruit.

2007· book-chapter· en· W7120702972 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. S. [UNESP] Borges, A. C. Vianna Lima

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Yield (engineering)Sri lankaConsumption (sociology)ExportationVine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The passion-fruit is extremely important in Brazil. Its fruits are rich in mineral salts and vitamins, especially A and C, and its juice has a wonderful aroma and flavor. It is widely accepted in different markets and there is a large potencial for exports, not to mention its pharmacological properties. In Brazil, the passion-fruit vine is cultivated predominantly in small orchards, on average 1.0 to 4.0 ha, and is an important source of income for small to medium producers. Brazil is the world's foremost producer of passion-fruit, with about 90% of the producion, followed by Peru, Venezuela, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Australia. Brazilian production is around 478,000 mt with a yield of about 13.8 mt/ha. The northen and north-eastern regions of the country are responsible for more than 80% of the national production. In Brazil, the passion-fruit is used primarily for fresh consumption and the production of juice, which is also exported. For Brazilian exporters, the principal market is Europe, which imports more than 90% of the juice. However, there ar very good prospects in the American, Canadian and Japanese markets.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1340.061

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207