MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621076292 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.47

Line × Tester Analysis for Earliness Yield and Yield Contributing Traits in Gossypium hirsutum L.

2017· article· en· W2621076292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shahnaz Memon, Wajid Ali Jatoi, S. A. Khanzada, Nazia Kamboh, Lubna Bashir Rajput

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch in Cotton Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLintRandomized block designHybridMating designBiologyYield (engineering)Gossypium hirsutumHorticultureBiotechnologyAgronomyHeterosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was carried out at Agriculture Research Institute (ARI) Tando Jam during 2016. The experimental material consisted of six lines viz., CRIS-134, Sindh-1, Sadori, Malmal, IR-901 and three testers; Bt-3701, Bt-121 and CIM-534.The crosses were made in line × tester mating design. F1 hybrids along with parents were sown in Randomized Complete Block Design with four replications in 2016. Seven yield and early maturing traits was recorded like, days to 1st flowering, days to 75% boll opening, plant height(cm), sympodial branches plant-1, bolls plant-1, seed cotton yield-1(g) and lint (%) for estimating of combining ability. The analysis of variance showed that genotypes, crosses, parents, parent vs crosses, lines, testers and line × tester were significant which demonstrated that genetic difference were present in genotypes for various yield and early maturing parameters. Among the lines, Sindh-1, CRIS-134 and testers, Bt-121 and Bt-3701 were best combiners and F1 hybrids like CRIS-134 × Bt-3701, Malmal × Bt-3701, CRIS-134 × Bt-121 were best combiners for all characters.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicResearch in Cotton CultivationFrench-language works237,207