MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910290036 · doi:10.5376/lgg.2014.05.0001

Assessment of Genetic Divergence in among Yard Long Bean (<i>Vigna unguiculata</i> subsp. <i>sesquipedalis</i> [L.]) Genotypes

2014· article· en· W1910290036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vavilapalli Siva Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueLegume Genomics and Genetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVignaBiologyHorticultureGenetic divergenceGenotypeYardRadiataBotanyGeneticsGenetic diversityGeneMedicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty four genotypes of yard long bean ( Vigna unguiculata subsp. sesquipedalis (L.) Verd.) were investigated to understand the extent of genetic diversity through twelve quantitative traits. Mahalanobis’s D 2 analysis established the presence of wide genetic diversity among these genotypes by the formation of 3 clusters. Cluster I had the maximum number of genotypes i.e 34 and cluster III had only four genotypes. Intra cluster distance analysis revealed that the minimum intra cluster distance was observed in the cluster I. The  inter-cluster  distance  (D)  was  found  to  be  the  maximum  between  the  clusters  II  and  III  and  the same  was minimum  between  clusters  I and  II. The results indicated that 100 seed weight contributed maximum to the total divergence followed by pod yield per plant. Intercrossing among the genotypes belonging to cluster II, V and IV was suggested to develop high yielding varieties with other desirable characters or may be used as potential donors for future hybridization programme to develop superior yard long bean variety with good consumer preference and high pod yield.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLegume Genomics and GeneticsSame topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207