MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119602827 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n10p97

Response Estimation of Wheat Synthetic Lines to Terminal Heat Stress Using Stress Indices

2012· article· en· W2119602827 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sindhu Sareen, B. S. Tyagi, Indu Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized block designHeat stressStress (linguistics)CropSowingAnimal scienceBiologyGenotypeHorticultureAgronomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty eight synthetic wheat lines were evaluated for terminal heat tolerance by normal (non-stress) and late (stress) planting in field in randomized block design with three replications for two crop seasons; 2008-09 and 2009-10. The genotypes differed significantly for thousand grain weight in non-stress and stress conditions. The stress susceptibility and tolerance indices were calculated for thousand grain weight and genotypes differed significantly for stress indices also. The stress tolerance indices; Stress tolerance index, Geometric mean production and Mean production had significant positive correlation with thousand grain weight in non-stress and stress conditions. The first two principal components explained more than 89 and 98% of variation during two crop seasons respectively. The study using bilpot analysis revealed that stress tolerance indices can be selection criteria for identification of tolerant genotypes. Using three dimensional plot, the genotypes which performed well in both environments or in one of the environments only or in none of the environments were identified. The synthetic wheat lines S9, S37, S44 and S57 had high thousand grain weight with heat tolerance during both years and genotypes S8, S22, S23, S49 and S77 had poor performance in both 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207