Simulation‐Based Analysis of Effects of <i>Vrn</i> and <i>Ppd</i> Loci on Flowering in Wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cereal production is strongly influenced by flowering date. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) models simulate days to flower by assuming that development is modified by vernalization and photoperiodism. Cultivar differences are parameterized by vernalization requirement, photoperiod sensitivity, and earliness per se. The parameters are usually estimated by comparing simulations with field observations but appear estimable from genetic information. For wheat, the Vrn and Ppd loci, which affect vernalization and photoperiodism, were logical candidates for estimating parameters in the model CSM‐Cropsim‐CERES. Two parameters were estimated conventionally and then re‐estimated with linear effects of Vrn and Ppd Flowering data were obtained for 29 cultivars from international nurseries and divided into calibration (14 locations) and evaluation (34 locations) sets. Simulations with a generic cultivar explained 95% of variation in flowering for calibration data (10 d RMSE) and 89% for evaluation data (10 d RMSE), indicating the large effect of environment. Nonetheless, for the calibration data, the gene‐based model explained 29% of remaining variation, and the conventional model, 54%. For the evaluation data, the gene‐based model explained 17% of remaining variation, and the conventional model, 27%. Gene‐based prediction of wheat phenology appears feasible, but more extensive genetic characterization of cultivars is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".