MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606740992 · doi:10.1094/cchem-12-16-0284-r

Seed Coat Cracking of Soybean (<i>Glycine max</i> [L.] Merr.) After Soaking and Cooking

2017· article· en· W2606740992 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Takeshi Yasui, Kyoko Toda, Tetsuya Yamada, Setsuzo Yumoto, Koji Takahashi, Motoki Takahashi, Makita Hajika

Bibliographic record

VenueCereal Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsChemistryCultivarInbred strainFood scienceFragariaHorticultureBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seed coat cracking after soaking (SCAS) and after cooking (SCAC) are unfavorable traits associated with soybeans for food uses, such as cooked and seasoned beans (nimame) and fermented steamed beans (natto) because they cause an inferior appearance of the products and clogging of the production lines. The variation and causes of SCAS and SCAC among cultivars have not yet been clarified, but if they are determined genetically, genetic modification could be possible. Cultivars showed considerable variations in SCAS and SCAC. Significantly positive seasonal correlations of SCAS (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, ρ = 0.518) and of SCAC (ρ = 0.681) were observed among recombinant inbred lines (RILs) derived from the cross between cultivars Nattoshoryu and Hyokeikuro 3. Quantitative trait locus (QTL) analyses and statistical analyses using generalized linear models showed that QTLs for SCAS ( qSCAS1 , qSCAS2 , and qSCAS3 ) and SCAC ( qSCAC1 and qSCAC2 ) were located on chromosomes 4 (linkage group [LG]: C1), 6 (LG: C2), and 8 (LG: A2) of the RILs. Interactions between QTLs were also observed. SCAS and SCAC are traits controlled by QTLs, which could provide significant insight into their causes and mechanisms. These undesirable characteristics could be improved through breeding.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCereal ChemistrySame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207