MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067823209 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.413656x

Two Types of GGE Biplots for Analyzing Multi‐Environment Trial Data

2001· article· en· W2067823209 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiplotPrincipal component analysisGene–environment interactionStatisticsBiologyRepresentativeness heuristicRegressionRegression analysisMain effectGenotypeMathematicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SA genotype main effect plus genotype × environment interaction (GGE) biplot graphically displays the genotypic main effect (G) and the genotype × environment interaction (GE) of the multienvironment trial (MET) data and facilitates visual evaluation of both the genotypes and the environments. This paper compares the merits of two types of GGE biplots in MET data analysis. The first type is constructed by the least squares solution of the sites regression model (SREG 2 ), with the first two principal components as the primary and secondary effects, respectively. The second type is constructed by Man‐del's solution for sites regression as the primary effect and the first principal component extracted from the regression residual as the secondary effect (SREG M+1 ). Results indicate that both the SREG 2 biplot and the SREG M+1 biplot are equally effective in displaying the “which‐won‐where” pattern of the MET data, although the SREG 2 biplot explains slightly more GGE variation. The SREG M+1 biplot is more desirable, however, in that it always explicitly indicates the average yield and stability of the genotypes and the discriminating ability and representativeness of the test environments.

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.

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 score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.128 · 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