MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030709727 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2002.1434

Likelihood‐Based Analysis of Genotype–Environment Interactions

2002· article· en· W2030709727 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rong‐Cai Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestricted maximum likelihoodBiologyCovarianceGene–environment interactionStatisticsMixed modelGenotypeMultivariate statisticsMultivariate analysisAnalysis of covarianceTraitScore testMaximum likelihoodGeneticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation of genotype–environment interactions can be divided to determine whether or not the interactions involve change in genotype or cultivar ranks across environments. However, no sound statistical tests are available for such determination. In this study, the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) analysis based on the mixed models theory was used to estimate genetic parameters and to test statistically for causes of genotype–environment interactions in two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crosses, Potam × Ingal and RL4137 × Ingal. The data with each cross consisted of the measurements of five quantitative traits for 144 F3‐derived F5 and F6 lines from 48 F2 families evaluated at Saskatoon in 1986 and 1987, respectively. The causes of family × year or line × year interactions were tested by comparing log likelihoods of reduced and full models (i.e., the family or line covariance structures with and without constraints). The REML estimation guaranteed that an estimated family or line covariance matrix was positive definite. Significant line × year interactions were detected in three traits in RL4137 × Ingal only and none involved rank changes. Significant family × year interactions were found in seven of 10 cross‐trait cases, but four of those seven cases involved change in family ranks across the 2 yr. The REML analysis allows the development of sound statistical tests for the different causes of interactions and constraining estimated genetic variances and covariances within acceptable ranges, thereby effectively removing the deficiencies with the conventional multivariate analysis of variance method.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207