Parent-offspring regression in meadow bromegrass (<i>Bromus riparius</i> Rehm.): Evaluation of two methodologies on heritability estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the nature and extent of inflation of estimates of heritabilities by parent-offspring regression methods, 40 clones of meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehm.) and their half-sib progenies were studied in completely randomized block design trials, with six replications in Saskatoon and Melfort, Canada. Clones and progenies were evaluated for dry matter yield, seed yield, plant height, fertility index and harvest index. The results of the analysis showed a consistent inflation of heritability estimates derived from the simple parent-offspring regression, when compared to the regression estimate by variance-covariance analysis. The two methods successfully removed the environmental covariances from the estimates. However, in the simple regression analysis, error covariance was not removed from the numerat or; therefore, heritabilities estimated by this methodology were higher than those estimated by the variance-covariance method. It was concluded that estimates derived from variance-covariance analysis provide less biased estimates of heritability. Key words: Regression analysis, heritability, meadow bromegrass
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".