MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588804591 · doi:10.5539/jas.v9n3p151

Genetic Study of Nutritional and Physicochemical Characters of Chickpea Lines and Cultivars (Cicer arietinum L.)

2017· article· en· W2588804591 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kaouthar Bayahi, S. Rezgui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaliberHeritabilityCultivarBiologyHorticultureBiotechnologyAgronomyMaterials scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixteen Kabuli chickpea lines composed of five varieties released in Tunisia and eleven breeding lines originated from ICARDA have been analyzed to measure their nutritional and physicochemical properties and to evaluate their seed quality. The analysis showed variability among the investigated material in terms of physicochemical characteristics of seeds (weight of 100 seeds, caliber, hydration capacity, inflation capacity) and flour (density, index of color and rate of proteins) and time of cooking (Table 2).The correlations between nutritional and physicochemical characters showed that they were significant between the weight of 100 seeds and the caliber (0.902), the time of cooking and the caliber (0.421), the index of color and the caliber (-0.334), the weight of 100 seeds and the capacity of hydration (0.580). High heritability was characterizing all the characters excepting the density, humidity and the ashes.The results show that the qualitative improvement of these traits is possible in early generations of a breeding program.The effect of supplementary irrigation was beneficial on the caliber of seeds, the weight of 100 grains, the hydration capacity and the rate of proteins.We consider that the genetics and the agricultural techniques take an equivalent part in the improvement of the quality on chickpea

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)0.000
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 score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207