MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028745400 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n10p224

Detection of Genetic Components of Variation for Yield, Fibre and Quality Traits in Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.)

2012· article· en· W2028745400 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
KIRAN KIRAN, V. K. Sood, S. Bhateria

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinumBiologyYield (engineering)Dominance (genetics)Selection (genetic algorithm)HorticultureBotanyAgronomyGeneGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research was carried out using generation mean analysis derived from crosses of TL-11 x Him Alsi-2, Turkey x Binwa and TL-43 x Binwa at two locations i.e. E1 and E2. Out of the three crosses, TL -11 x Him Alsi-2 was the best cross in both the locations. This cross invariably has given 2-3 times higher yield than the remaining crosses. Therefore, the results obtained in the present investigation with respect to the above best cross for generation mean analysis suggested that both additive and dominance gene effects were important for most of the traits but dominance was predominant as compared to additive effects. Duplicate type of gene action was observed in the expression of days to 50 per cent flowering, seed yield per plant, plant height, technical height and fibre traits in E2 for the above cross which implies the use of biparental approach and selection to be deferred to later generations. Complimentary type of gene action was observed for biological yield per plant, seed yield per plant which implies the use of biparental approach and early generation selection. Therefore, it appears worthwhile to go for biparental matings or few cycles of recurrent selection for the accumulation of favourable genes for seed yield and its components in linseed. Different breeding strategy for crosswise as well as location wise is suggested because gene action was different in two locations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207