MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415691128 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n7p23

Analysis of Character Association of Quantitative Traits in Lupinus Species

2016· article· en· W2415691128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natalia Georgieva, Valentin Kosev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLupinusPoint of deliveryBiologyForageYield (engineering)TraitAgronomyHorticultureFabaceaeBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An evaluation of the agronomic performance of two lupin species (Lupinus albus and Lupinus luteus) was conducted at the Institute of Forage Crops (Bulgaria) during 2012-2014. The hightest positive correlations among the agronomic traits in white lupin were between number of pods per plant and seed weight per plant (r = 0.956); plant height with pod stem length (r = 0.935) and pod length (r = 0.934); seed weight per plant and number of pods per plant (r = 0.956). In yellow lupin relatively high phenotypic correlations were detected between number of pods per plant and seed weight per plant (r = 0.956); seed weight per plant and number of pods (r = 0.875) and number of seeds per plant (r = 0.927). Collecting data on the mutual relationships among individual yield components and their effect on the yield remains crucial for their optimisation and development of improved lupin genotypes with high quality and stable yields. Based on the trait associations it can be concluded that lupin breeders should pay attention to the traits such as pod length, number of seeds per plant and 1000 seeds mass when selecting high-yielding genotypes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207