MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069976767 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2009.03.0133

Identifying Essential Test Locations for Oat Breeding in Eastern Canada

2010· article· en· W2069976767 on OpenAlexaffabout
Weikai Yan, Judith Fregeau-reid, Denis Pageau, Richard A. Martin, Jennifer Mitchell‐Fetch, J. Rowsell, P. R. SCOTT, M. G. Price, Brad de Haan, Allan Cummiskey, Julie Lajeunesse, Julie Durand, Ellen Sparry

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaGovernment of New BrunswickMining Association of CanadaAtlantic Industries (Canada)Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreedBiplotAvenaBiologyCultivarYield (engineering)Test weightAgricultureBreeding programTest (biology)GenotypeAgronomyBiotechnologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The oat (Avena sativa L.) breeding program at the Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre of Agriculture & Agri‐Food Canada has the responsibility to breed new oat cultivars for producers in eastern Canada, which includes Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces. A 3‐yr multilocation test was conducted to understand the genotype × location interaction patterns and the relationships among test locations in eastern Canada. A genotype + genotype × environment interaction biplot analysis of yield data revealed three distinct oat mega‐environments in eastern Canada: (i) northern Ontario, (ii) southern and eastern Ontario, and (iii) Quebec and Atlantic Canada. To breed for all mega‐environments, initial yield screening must be conducted at locations representing each of these mega‐environments. Based on the relationships among test locations, six essential test locations were identified: three in Ontario, two in Quebec, and one in Atlantic Canada. Testing at all six locations appeared to provide a good coverage of the whole oat‐growing area in eastern Canada. Based on these findings, a breeding and test strategy was developed. This includes conducting initial yield screening at three locations in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, followed by a formal yield test at all six essential test locations. Specifically adapted genotypes selected from this test will then be tested in the Registration Tests in their respectively adapted subregions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations98
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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