If I may venture a guess, Madam…..
Have you considered the cannabinoid CBG?
CBG is like the “mother” cannabinoid. As in in, all cannabinoids start out as CBG and then evolve into their final form (thc, cbd, etc). This only applies to cannabinoids, not terpenes.
Although, the terpenes are highest earlier in flower, so you may be getting a bigger % of terpenes as well….
Just a theory, anyway…. I’ve been thinking about this for a year…
CBG is highest in concentration in the small, clear, “premature” trichomes during early flower.Honestly thought that it might be coming off the pistils because of how I gather it..but @Waira says not the same Trics on the pistils...
I have tried wording it enough different ways that i have already used up all my daily speedy searches and it just won’t give me what i asked for!throw the ball dad, throw the ball! THROW THE FUCKING BALL! ppp
View attachment 1675372View attachment 1675373View attachment 1675374
GiGo like you I have worked with Bayesian modeling and that is why I thought I knew where they were headed but they took me to the twilight zone.I've done Bayesian modeling, as well as other types of computer modeling, and think I understand its limitations. "Garbage in - garbage out" comes to mind. The end results depend sensitively on the input, and in the specific case of Bayesian approaches, the input is often educated guesswork of general relationships between variables, not strong data about them. The tool can be used with care for exploring sensitivity of modeled systems to particular influences, but pretending that accurate future predictions can be generated is in my opinion optimistic. The modified approach described in the paper seems to intend to improve the Bayesian process by using observations to adjust the Bayesian functions, but predictions based on Bayesian models will still be limited by the underlying weakness of applicable data. The very use of the Bayesian approach is admission that data which would allow more precise modeling approaches are not possible due to lack of good data. They too often in my opinion dress up somewhat educated guesses as something more reliable. Basing important decisions on them is risky.
Bayesian modeling discussions on a stoner forum. Who woulda thunk?