Efficiency of Spatial Analyses of Field Pea Variety Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several spatial analyses of neighboring plots are now available for improving the precision of variety trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of three commonly used spatial analyses, a nearest neighbor adjustment (NNA), a least squares smoothing (LSS), and a first‐order autoregressive model (AR1), in removing field trends from 157 field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) variety trials tested in different growing zones across Alberta, Canada, during 1997 to 2001. All trials were conducted with a randomized complete block (RCB) design with three or four replications. A complete replication (block) was planted in a single field tier. Yield data from each of the 157 trials were subject to the conventional RCB analysis and the three spatial analyses. The LSS, NNA, and AR1 analyses removed an average of 22, 16, and 7% residual variation compared with the RCB analysis, respectively, but the amount of removal by the three analyses varied considerably among the trials. Each spatial analysis achieved more error reduction in 1997 and 1998, where trials contained larger block sizes than in 1999 to 2001, where trials contained smaller block sizes. The efficiency in spatial variation removal was great with large block sizes that involved large numbers of varieties. Furthermore, the LSS and NNA analyses were more effective in such removal than the AR1 analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".