View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Method / resource observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
Prediction error was frequently less than calibration error .
prediction error e2 calibration error e2 Verbatim
t0 “Predictors of Alfalfa Forage Quality ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–36 e2 “the prediction error frequently was less than the calibration error ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1110–1177 Other claims from this paper (5) Method / resource observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
EONR prediction error was about three times higher than yield prediction error across forecast times.
prediction error of EONR e0 yield predictions e0 Verbatim
e0 “Across all forecast times, prediction error of EONR was about three times higher than yield prediction s. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1789–1893 t0 “Corn ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–44 Other claims from this paper (6) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The root-mean-square error of prediction and the standard error of prediction were both 0.0026.
the root-means-square error of prediction (RMSEP) and the standard error of prediction (SEP) e1 Verbatim
e1 “Accordingly, the root-means-square error of prediction (RMSEP) and the standard error of prediction (SEP) are both 0.0026 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1026–1147 e2 “Seven varieties of foxtail millet were successfully identified ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 510–572 Other claims from this paper (5) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The spatial error model had prediction error around 0.353 Mt/ha.
prediction error e0 Verbatim
e0 “prediction error of around 0.353 Mt/ha when employing the Spatial Error model ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1264–1341 t0 “Rice ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 Other claims from this paper (2) Method / resource observed original result negative measured Claim · model-written summary
The prediction had an error threshold.
error threshold in the prediction e0 Not reported Value
Verbatim
e0 “there is an error threshold in the prediction ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1825–1870 t0 “Paddy Yield Prediction ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–64 Other claims from this paper (4) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
Prediction error ranged from zero to eight days.
error of prediction e0 Not reported Taxon
Verbatim
e0 “Overall, the error of prediction ranged from 0 to 8 days ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 779–835 Other claims from this paper (2) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The average prediction error of the model was within 14% of the mean absolute error .
average prediction error e5 mean absolute error e5 Verbatim
e5 “The average prediction error was within 14% of the mean absolute error ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2532–2602 Other claims from this paper (4) Method / resource observed original result measured Claim · model-written summary
The volume prediction standard error was 9.41.
standard error of prediction e0 Verbatim
e0 “the standard error of prediction was 9.41 ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 615–656 t0 “mango ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 Other claims from this paper (2) Method / resource observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
The approach reduced wheat maturity prediction error .
prediction error of wheat maturity e0 Not reported Comparator Value
Verbatim
e0 “experiment reduced the prediction error of wheat maturity ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1002–1059 Other claims from this paper (3) Method / resource observed original result positive measured Claim · model-written summary
The confusion matrix showed a very low prediction error rate.
prediction error rate e0 Not reported Comparator Value
Verbatim
e0 “the confusion matrix shows a very low prediction error rate ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1269–1328 Other claims from this paper (3) 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.
Medicago sativat0
Zea mays subsp. mays
Setaria italica
Oryza sativa_from_India.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
Mangifera indica
Triticum aestivum