MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1720806390 · doi:10.4141/cjps2010-046

Use of GGE biplot methodology for genetic analysis of yield and related traits in melon (<i>Cucumis melo</i>L.)

2012· article· en· W1720806390 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamid Dehghani, Ehsan Feyzian, Mokhtar Jalali, A. Rezai, Fenny Dane

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiplotMelonCucumisDiallel crossBiologyYield (engineering)CultivarAgronomyHorticultureHybridGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dehghani, H., Feyzian, E., Jalali, M., Rezai, A. and Dane, F. 2012. Use of GGE biplot methodology for genetic analysis of yield and related traits in melon ( Cucumis melo L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 77–85. A complete diallel cross experiment of six local Iranian melon populations (Eyvanaki, Abasali, Tashkandi, Hose-sorkh, Mashhadi and Mirpanji) and one cultivar (Ananasi) was conducted. Fruit number, average weight per fruit, yield and acceptable yield were re-evaluated using GGE biplot methodology. The two principal components of biplot explained 70, 58, 86 and 88% of total observed variation for yield, acceptable yield, average weight per fruit and fruit number per plant, respectively. Mirpanji had the highest GCA for yield, acceptable yield and average weight per fruit, but the highest negative GCA for fruit number per plant. Abasali showed the highest positive GCA for fruit number. Biplot analysis allowed a rapid and effective overview of general combining ability (GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA) effects of the populations, their performance in crosses, as well as grouping patterns of similar genotypes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207