MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification, selection and observation of Nuansa Sanggabuana soybean, its yield and resistance to diseases

2017· article· en· W2613265134 on OpenAlexaff
Ai Komariah, Noertjahyani Hardedi, Salman Buhturi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized block designHectareYield (engineering)Selection (genetic algorithm)BiologyTrunkHorticultureMathematicsBotanyComputer scienceEcologyPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study to get Nuansa Sanggabuana (NS) of Karawang soybean variety to be released to become superior variety was conducted district of Karawang, West Java province, from 2010 to 2014. The study consisted of identification, purification and description, adaptation test. The identification step was conducted positive mass selection; purification was done a negative mass selection, adaptation yield test and also resistances to diseases. The test was arranged in randomized block design by comparing NS Karawang with Anjasmoro, Argomulyo, Orba, Grobogan, and Rajabasa which was repeated 4 times. Identification result had two NS Karawang local variants based on colour on the trunk, which were grey trunk fur and brown trunk fur. Variant which was purified for the next generation was one brown trunk fur. On-off type individual purification step was discarded and made description based on UPOV standard. Adaptation test result showed that differences between NS Karawang and Anjasmoro, Argomulyo, Orba, Grobogan, and Rajabasa variety on plant’s height, number of productive trunk, number of pod for each plant, weight of 100 grains, yield per plant, yield per unit, and yield per hectare. NS Karawang had higher yield than Anjasmoro, Argomulyo, Orba, and Rajabasa but lower yield than Grobogan.

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 score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207