MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2361503972

The Establishment of Ningxia Japonica Rice Core Collection by the Value of Genotype

2012· article· en· W2361503972 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
WU Shao-hu

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMahalanobis distanceStatisticsMathematicsUPGMACluster analysisEuclidean distanceSampling (signal processing)Best linear unbiased predictionGenetic distanceGenetic variationBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the 7QTL of genetic diversity,used 250 Japonica varieties of Ningxia as materials to study the establishment of Japonica core collection.By statistical analysis technique of best linear unbiased prediction(BLUP),the genotype value of the materials was predicated.The different genetic distance,sampling method and clustering method were estimated by Means,Variance,Range,Coefficient of variation and Rand Analysis Method according 2 genetic distances(Mahalanobis Distance and Euclidian distance),3 sampling method(multi-times random sampling,multi-time preferred sampling and multi-times deviation smapling),8 clustering method(shortest distance method,complete linkage,group average method,barycenter method,UPGMA,varied UPGMA,flexible method,sum of square of the deviations method).The results showed that Mahalanobis Distance was prefered to Euclidian distance,multi-times deviation smapling was prefered to random sampling preferred sampling,the best clustering were the shortest distance method and flexible method,the best sampling ratio was 15%.37 Ningxia Japonica rice core collection were established by Mahalanobis Distance,multi-times deviation smapling,15% sampling ratio and the shortest distance method.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.212
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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207