MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166980900 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v5n3p73

Kernel Quality Association and Path Analysis in Bread Wheat

2013· article· en· W2166980900 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reza Mir Drikvand, M R Bihamta, G Najafian, Asa Ebrahimi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalling NumberGlutenPath analysis (statistics)Path coefficientTraitCultivarCorrelation coefficientMathematicsAnimal scienceCorrelationStatisticsBiologyAgronomyHorticultureFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The correlation and path coefficient analysis of some kernel quality traits have been studied for 92 cultivars, breeding lines and landrace varieties of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Ninety-two genotypes were evaluated in alpha lattice design with two replications. Result of analysis of variance indicated that there were significant differences among genotypes in the most of traits. The correlation analysis showed that there were significant positive correlations among thousand kernel weight (TKW), grain length (GL) and grain width (GW). We also showed TKW, GL and GW had positive correlation with grain protein percentage, gluten weight, and falling number. Grain protein was significantly correlated with several kernel characteristics including: TKW, GL, GW, hardness index, gluten weight, SDS sedimentation, and falling number. On the first and second steps of stepwise regression analysis, protein percentage and falling number were the most effective traits in explaining different trait variations. Path coefficient analysis also showed the direct and significant effects of grain protein percentage and medium direct effect of falling number on SDS sedimentation. This result can be used in wheat breeding programs.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207