Selection of Superior Genotypes in 37 Clones of Camu-Camu by Repetitivity Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to select camu-camu superior genotypes, a comparative of clones from natural populations, farmer plantations and an experimental field of the National Institute of Agrarian Innovation (INIA), was established in 2004 in varzea, at the Peruvian Amazon Research Institute (IIAP). Nine harvests between 2006 and 2016 have been evaluated, including variables in vegetative and reproductive development states. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS program for analysis of variance and SELEGEN REML/BLUP for repetitivity analysis of “fruit yield” (FY) and “fruit weight” (FW) with 5 and 4 measurements (years) respectively. For FY, a repetitivity index r = 0.117±0.07 was obtained with a selective precision of 0.63 and efficiency of 1.84 where clones 69, 48, 58, 50, 61, 13, 18, 29, 49 and 32, were selected in descending order of merit. For FW, r = 0.690±0.294 was obtained with selective precision of 0.948, efficiency of 1.14 and selection of clones 44, 13, 26, 23, 69, 64 22, 52, 27 and 8. As for the content in ascorbic acid, clones 48, 32 and 35 occupied the first places with more than 2000 mg of ascorbic acid/100 g. The selections achieved strengthened the pre-improvement work by conferring vigour y fiavility of a long term research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".