Determination of General and Specific Combining Ability of Five Upland Cotton Cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation was aimed to determine the general combining ability of the parental lines and specific combining ability of the hybrids respectively and also heterotic effect of F1 hybrids for some agro-economical traits in upland cotton. Five parent genotypes viz. NIAB-78, Chandi-95, Haridost, CRIS-134 and Shahbaz were used to generate ten F1 hybrids through diallel mating design. The seeds of F1 hybrids along with their parents were sown in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in three replications during 2009-10. All the traits showed highly significant variation and GCA and SCA variances were also significant for all the parameters studied. Among the parents, NIAB-78, Haridost and CRIS-134 were best general combiners for plant height, sympodial branches per plant, bolls per plant, boll weight, seed cotton yield per plant, GOT% and seed index. Cross NIAB-78×Chandi-95 was best specific combiner for plant height and bolls per plant and CRIS-134×Haridost for sympodial branches per plant. However, the hybrid Chandi-95×CRIS-134 proved best specific combiner for seed cotton yield per plant and GOT%, while NIAB-78×CRIS-134 gave maximum SCA effects for seed index.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".