MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286502331 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n2p57

Development of End-User Preferred Sweetpotato Varieties

2016· article· en· W2286502331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ernest Baafi, Joe Manu-Aduening, Vernon Gracen, Kwadwo Ofori, Edward E. Carey, Essie Blay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCocoa and Sweet Potato Agronomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarIpomoeaBiologyHybridCropSugarCroppingHeterosisAgronomyPlant breedingBiotechnologyAgricultureHorticultureFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Sweetpotato (<em>Ipomoea batatas </em>(L.) Lam) is the fourth most important root and tuber crop in Ghana, in terms of production. Attainment of increased sweetpotato utilization has become an important breeding objective in Ghana recently. The major emphasis in breeding is on the development of farmer/consumer preferred varieties. This study aimed at developing farmer/consumer preferred sweetpotato cultivars for increased utilization in Ghana and beyond. One hundred and fifteen sweetpotato accessions were collected and evaluated at two ecozones in the major and minor cropping seasons in 2011 to identify low sugar parents for hybridization. Two released varieties (Histarch and Ogyefo) and eight breeding lines (AAT-03-025, CIP 442264, CRIWAC 25-10, CRIWAC 30-10, DOS 03-006, CRIWAC 11-10, CIP 440095 and CRIWAC 19-10) were selected and used as parents. Genetic variability was significant for all the traits studied. Sufficient useful genetic variation was present in the materials studied and was exploited to provide for substantial amount of improvement through selection of superior genotypes. Negative heterosis was observed for sugar content and this is very important for breeding because Ghanaians prefer non-sweet varieties. Fifteen percent of the F<sub>1</sub> hybrids of Histarch and Ogyefo were non-sweet. These will meet the staple food needs of Ghanaians. Eight hybrids were identified as potential non-sweet varieties for further testing multilocation on-farm for release. These were Ogyefo × Histarch-11, Histarch × Ogyefo-13, Histarch × Ogyefo-52, Histarch × Ogyefo-37, Histarch × Ogyefo-65, Histarch × Ogyefo-88, Histarch × Ogyefo-39 and Histarch × Ogyefo-16.</p>

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 score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicCocoa and Sweet Potato AgronomyFrench-language works237,207