Application of supervised feature selection methods to define the most important traits affecting maximum kernel water content in maize
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the results of applying supervised feature selection algorithms in the selection of the most important traits contributing to the maximum kernel water content (MKWC) as a major yield component. Data were obtained from a field experiment conducted during 2008 growing season, at the Experimental Farm of the College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, and from the literature. Experiments on the subject of sink/source relationships in maize were collected from twelve fields (as records) of different parts of the world, differing in 23 characteristics (features). The feature selection algorithm demonstrated that 15 features including: planting date (days), countries (Iran, Argentina, India, USA, Canada), hybrid types, Phosphorous fertilizer applied (kg ha-1), final kernel weight (mg), soil type, season duration (days), days to silking, leaf dry weight (g plant-1), mean kernel weight (mg), cob dry weight (g plant-1), kernel number per ear, grain yield (g m-2), nitrogen applied (kg ha-1), and duration of the grain filling period (0C day) were the most effective traits in determining maximum kernel water content. Among the effective traits (features), planting date (days) revealed to be the critical one. Hybrids and countries were the second most important affecting factors on the maize kernel water content. For the first time, our results showed that features classification by supervised feature selection algorithms can provide a comprehensive view on distinguishing the important traits which contribute to maize kernel water content and yield. This study opened a new vista in maize physiology using feature selection and data mining methods and would be beneficial to newcomers of this field
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".