MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186886776 · doi:10.21273/jashs.127.5.776

Genotype/Genotype × Environment Biplot Analysis for Cultivar Evaluation and Mega-environment Investigation in Primocane-fruiting Red Raspberry

2002· article· en· W2186886776 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Alan Sullivan, Weikai Yan, Jean-Pierre Privé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlowing a raspberryBiplotCultivarRubusBiologyHorticultureGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primocane-fruiting (PF) red raspberry ( Rubus idaeus L.) cultivars are being grown in many regions as their popularity increases. However, testing of this perennial fruit crop is expensive and requires many years. Large genotype (G) × environment (E) interactions can make identification of superior genotypes difficult. The G/G × E (GGE) biplot can be used to measure cultivar performance and group locations into mega-environments. The GGE biplot was applied to yield trial data of three PF red raspberry cultivars Autumn Bliss, Heritage, and Redwing grown in 17 environments (year-location combinations). The 17 environments encompassed six locations in Ontario and Quebec, Canada between 1989 and 1996. `Autumn Bliss' produced the highest yields in 11 of 17 environments. `Heritage' was usually the lowest yielding cultivar. Two mega-environments were identified based on the performance of `Autumn Bliss' and `Redwing'. Some environmental variables were likely to be responsible for the discriminating ability of the test environments as they were correlated with the primary effects. The GGE biplot was an effective analysis to determine mega-environments and the cultivars best adapted to each.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207