Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“average compression force”

44 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

plus 43 non-evaluative

Over time

2000 ’10 ’20

Refine ·

More filters

Clear filters

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Average compression force ranged from 131 to 171 N for dehulled rice.

Taxon: riceOryza sativae0
Material: dehulled ricee0
Outcome: average compression forcee0
Value: 131 to 171 Ne0

Verbatim

e0
“The average compression force varied from 131 to 171 N for dehulled rice and 203 to 283 N for rough rice”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 538–642

Title

Mechanical properties of rough and dehulled rice during drying

Osvaldo Resende; Paulo César Corrêa; Gabriel Oliveira; et al. International Journal of Food Studies 2013. doi:10.7455/ijfs/2.2.2013.a3

Other claims from this paper (6)

Association Dehulled rice rupture force rose from 37.2 to 70.6 N as moisture declined.
Association Rough rice rupture force rose from 48.0 to 79.5 N as moisture declined.
Observation Average compression force ranged from 203 to 283 N for rough rice.
Observation Dehulled rice proportional deformity modulus ranged from 5.5 x 109 to 7.4 x 109 Pa.
Observation Rough rice proportional deformity modulus ranged from 9.5 x 109 to 12.3 x 109 Pa.
Observation Rough rice resisted compression more than dehulled rice.

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Average compression force ranged from 203 to 283 N for rough rice.

Taxon: riceOryza sativae0
Material: rough ricee0
Outcome: average compression forcee0
Value: 203 to 283 Ne0

Verbatim

e0
“The average compression force varied from 131 to 171 N for dehulled rice and 203 to 283 N for rough rice”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 538–642

Title

Mechanical properties of rough and dehulled rice during drying

Osvaldo Resende; Paulo César Corrêa; Gabriel Oliveira; et al. International Journal of Food Studies 2013. doi:10.7455/ijfs/2.2.2013.a3

Other claims from this paper (6)

Association Dehulled rice rupture force rose from 37.2 to 70.6 N as moisture declined.
Association Rough rice rupture force rose from 48.0 to 79.5 N as moisture declined.
Observation Average compression force ranged from 131 to 171 N for dehulled rice.
Observation Dehulled rice proportional deformity modulus ranged from 5.5 x 109 to 7.4 x 109 Pa.
Observation Rough rice proportional deformity modulus ranged from 9.5 x 109 to 12.3 x 109 Pa.
Observation Rough rice resisted compression more than dehulled rice.

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

JEJEJ average compression force was 3.37 kN.

Taxon: pumpkint0
Material: JEJEJe0
Outcome: average compression forcee0
Value: 3.37e0

Verbatim

e0
“the maximum, minimum, and average compression force of JEJEJ, TC2A, Hokutokou was 4.66, 4.58, and 4.61 kN; 2.81, 2.06, and 2.24 kN; and 3.37, 3.1, and 3.23kN, respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1215–1386

t0
“pumpkin”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–27

Title

Characterization of pumpkin for a harvesting robot

Ali Roshanianfard; Noboru Noguchi IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.056

Other claims from this paper (18)

Observation Average pumpkin lift weight was 26% more than pure weight.
Observation Lifted pumpkins had orientations from -90° to +90°.
Observation Average tested pumpkin radius was 105.62 mm.
Observation Average tested pumpkin volume was 4.95 × 106 mm3.
Observation Average tested pumpkin weight was 3.03 kg.
Method / resource Lifting technique and pumpkin parametrization formed a robotic harvesting method.
Observation JEJEJ maximum compression force was 4.66 kN.
Observation TC2A maximum compression force was 4.58 kN.
Observation Hokutokou maximum compression force was 4.61 kN.
Observation JEJEJ minimum compression force was 2.81 kN.
Observation TC2A minimum compression force was 2.06 kN.
Observation Hokutokou minimum compression force was 2.24 kN.
Observation TC2A average compression force was 3.1 kN.
Observation Hokutokou average compression force was 3.23 kN.
Observation JEJEJE optimum stem-cutting stress was 2.84 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation TC2A optimum stem-cutting stress was 3.3 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation Hokutokou optimum stem-cutting stress was 2.01 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation Stem-cutting times were 2.4, 2.03, and 1.39 s for JEJEJE, TC2A, and Hokutokou, respectively.

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

TC2A average compression force was 3.1 kN.

Taxon: pumpkint0
Material: TC2Ae0
Outcome: average compression forcee0
Value: 3.1e0

Verbatim

e0
“the maximum, minimum, and average compression force of JEJEJ, TC2A, Hokutokou was 4.66, 4.58, and 4.61 kN; 2.81, 2.06, and 2.24 kN; and 3.37, 3.1, and 3.23kN, respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1215–1386

t0
“pumpkin”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–27

Title

Characterization of pumpkin for a harvesting robot

Ali Roshanianfard; Noboru Noguchi IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.056

Other claims from this paper (18)

Observation Average pumpkin lift weight was 26% more than pure weight.
Observation Lifted pumpkins had orientations from -90° to +90°.
Observation Average tested pumpkin radius was 105.62 mm.
Observation Average tested pumpkin volume was 4.95 × 106 mm3.
Observation Average tested pumpkin weight was 3.03 kg.
Method / resource Lifting technique and pumpkin parametrization formed a robotic harvesting method.
Observation JEJEJ maximum compression force was 4.66 kN.
Observation TC2A maximum compression force was 4.58 kN.
Observation Hokutokou maximum compression force was 4.61 kN.
Observation JEJEJ minimum compression force was 2.81 kN.
Observation TC2A minimum compression force was 2.06 kN.
Observation Hokutokou minimum compression force was 2.24 kN.
Observation JEJEJ average compression force was 3.37 kN.
Observation Hokutokou average compression force was 3.23 kN.
Observation JEJEJE optimum stem-cutting stress was 2.84 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation TC2A optimum stem-cutting stress was 3.3 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation Hokutokou optimum stem-cutting stress was 2.01 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation Stem-cutting times were 2.4, 2.03, and 1.39 s for JEJEJE, TC2A, and Hokutokou, respectively.

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hokutokou average compression force was 3.23 kN.

Taxon: pumpkint0
Material: Hokutokoue0
Outcome: average compression forcee0
Value: 3.23kNe0

Verbatim

e0
“the maximum, minimum, and average compression force of JEJEJ, TC2A, Hokutokou was 4.66, 4.58, and 4.61 kN; 2.81, 2.06, and 2.24 kN; and 3.37, 3.1, and 3.23kN, respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1215–1386

t0
“pumpkin”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–27

Title

Characterization of pumpkin for a harvesting robot

Ali Roshanianfard; Noboru Noguchi IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.056

Other claims from this paper (18)

Observation Average pumpkin lift weight was 26% more than pure weight.
Observation Lifted pumpkins had orientations from -90° to +90°.
Observation Average tested pumpkin radius was 105.62 mm.
Observation Average tested pumpkin volume was 4.95 × 106 mm3.
Observation Average tested pumpkin weight was 3.03 kg.
Method / resource Lifting technique and pumpkin parametrization formed a robotic harvesting method.
Observation JEJEJ maximum compression force was 4.66 kN.
Observation TC2A maximum compression force was 4.58 kN.
Observation Hokutokou maximum compression force was 4.61 kN.
Observation JEJEJ minimum compression force was 2.81 kN.
Observation TC2A minimum compression force was 2.06 kN.
Observation Hokutokou minimum compression force was 2.24 kN.
Observation JEJEJ average compression force was 3.37 kN.
Observation TC2A average compression force was 3.1 kN.
Observation JEJEJE optimum stem-cutting stress was 2.84 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation TC2A optimum stem-cutting stress was 3.3 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation Hokutokou optimum stem-cutting stress was 2.01 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation Stem-cutting times were 2.4, 2.03, and 1.39 s for JEJEJE, TC2A, and Hokutokou, respectively.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Linear regression predicted peach compression force with R² 0.87 and 9.66% average error.

Taxon: PeachPrunus persicat0
Outcome: compression forcee0
Value: 9.66%e0

Verbatim

e0
“R 2 = 0.87 for compression force; R 2 = 0.79 for sugar content; R 2 = 0.81 for pH) and relatively low average percentage errors (9.66%, 7.68% and 3.6%, for compression force, sugar content and pH, respectively)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 269–479

t0
“Peach”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 14–19

Title

Evaluation of Peach Quality Attribute Using an Electronic Nose

Hongmei Zhang; Jun Wang; J Brezmes; et al. Sensors and Materials 2009. doi:10.18494/sam.2009.585

Other claims from this paper (5)

Method / resource Linear regression predicted peach sugar content with R² 0.79 and 7.68% average error.
Method / resource Linear regression predicted peach pH with R² 0.81 and 3.6% average error.
Method / resource Neural network predicted peach compression force with R² 0.90 and 6.39% average error.
Method / resource Neural network predicted peach sugar content with R² 0.81 and 6.21% average error.
Method / resource Neural network predicted peach pH with R² 0.87 and 3.13% average error.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neural network predicted peach compression force with R² 0.90 and 6.39% average error.

Taxon: PeachPrunus persicat0
Outcome: compression forcee0
Value: 6.39%e0

Verbatim

e0
“R 2 = 0.90, 0.81 and 0.87 for compression force, sugar content and pH, respectively) between predicted and measured values and relatively low average percentage errors (6.39%, 6.21% and 3.13% for compression force, sugar content and pH, respectively)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 583–833

t0
“Peach”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 14–19

Title

Evaluation of Peach Quality Attribute Using an Electronic Nose

Hongmei Zhang; Jun Wang; J Brezmes; et al. Sensors and Materials 2009. doi:10.18494/sam.2009.585

Other claims from this paper (5)

Method / resource Linear regression predicted peach compression force with R² 0.87 and 9.66% average error.
Method / resource Linear regression predicted peach sugar content with R² 0.79 and 7.68% average error.
Method / resource Linear regression predicted peach pH with R² 0.81 and 3.6% average error.
Method / resource Neural network predicted peach sugar content with R² 0.81 and 6.21% average error.
Method / resource Neural network predicted peach pH with R² 0.87 and 3.13% average error.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Debranning decreased the force at the end of compression by 230%.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment: Debranninge3
Outcome: force at the end of compressione3
Direction: decreasee3
Value: 230%e3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“the mechanical properties of wheat kernels”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 71–113

e3
“Debranning also caused a decrease of rapture force and force at the end of compression (average of about 43 and 230%, respectively)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 541–672

Title

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SINGLE KERNEL OF WHEAT IN RELATION TO DEBRANNING RATIO AND MOISTURE CONTENT

Dariusz Dziki 2004

Other claims from this paper (6)

Intervention effect Debranning decreased kernel deformation up to the rupture point.
Intervention effect Increasing kernel moisture content from 12 to 16% increased kernel deformation.
Intervention effect Debranning decreased rupture force by about 43%.
Intervention effect Kernel moisture content had no significant influence on rupture force or end-of-compression force.
Intervention effect Only for undebranned kernels, increasing moisture from 12 to 14% decreased rupture force.
Association Kernel loading force at the end of compression was described by a linear regression on kernel ash content and individual kernel mass (R 2 = 0.914).

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crispy blackberry genotypes had greater compression force than noncrispy genotypes, averaging 11.8 N versus 8.0 N.

Taxon: BlackberryRubust0
Material: crispy and noncrispy genotypese0
Outcome: Compression forcee0
Direction: differentiatede0
Value: 11.8 Newton (N)e0
Qualifier: 8.0 Ne0

Verbatim

e0
“Compression force values differentiated crispy and noncrispy genotypes, with average values of 11.8 Newton (N) and 8.0 N, respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 995–1129

t0
“Blackberry Genotypes”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 9–29

Title

“Crispy” Blackberry Genotypes: A Breeding Innovation of the University of Arkansas Blackberry Breeding Program

Alejandra A. Salgado; John R. Clark HortScience 2016. doi:10.21273/hortsci.51.5.468

Other claims from this paper (4)

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

TC2A maximum compression force was 4.58 kN.

Taxon: pumpkint0
Material: TC2Ae0
Outcome: maximume0
Value: 4.58e0

Verbatim

e0
“the maximum, minimum, and average compression force of JEJEJ, TC2A, Hokutokou was 4.66, 4.58, and 4.61 kN; 2.81, 2.06, and 2.24 kN; and 3.37, 3.1, and 3.23kN, respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1215–1386

t0
“pumpkin”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–27

Title

Characterization of pumpkin for a harvesting robot

Ali Roshanianfard; Noboru Noguchi IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.056

Other claims from this paper (18)

Observation Average pumpkin lift weight was 26% more than pure weight.
Observation Lifted pumpkins had orientations from -90° to +90°.
Observation Average tested pumpkin radius was 105.62 mm.
Observation Average tested pumpkin volume was 4.95 × 106 mm3.
Observation Average tested pumpkin weight was 3.03 kg.
Method / resource Lifting technique and pumpkin parametrization formed a robotic harvesting method.
Observation JEJEJ maximum compression force was 4.66 kN.
Observation Hokutokou maximum compression force was 4.61 kN.
Observation JEJEJ minimum compression force was 2.81 kN.
Observation TC2A minimum compression force was 2.06 kN.
Observation Hokutokou minimum compression force was 2.24 kN.
Observation JEJEJ average compression force was 3.37 kN.
Observation TC2A average compression force was 3.1 kN.
Observation Hokutokou average compression force was 3.23 kN.
Observation JEJEJE optimum stem-cutting stress was 2.84 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation TC2A optimum stem-cutting stress was 3.3 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation Hokutokou optimum stem-cutting stress was 2.01 N ⁄ mm2.
Observation Stem-cutting times were 2.4, 2.03, and 1.39 s for JEJEJE, TC2A, and Hokutokou, respectively.

Lexical search (BM25). All words must match; if nothing does, any word. Organism names also match every spelling of the same organism. No semantic search yet.

“average compression force”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics