MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905410539 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n1p81

Genetic Improvement of Grain Quality Promoted by High and New Technology in Rice

2018· article· en· W2905410539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bo Peng, Jun Li, Dongyan Kong, Lulu He, Mengge Li, Tondi-Yacouba Nassirou, Peng Yu, Xiaohua Song, Juan Peng, Yue Jiang, Yanfang Sun, Rui-Hua Pang, Qingqing Xin, Yuchen Liu, Guo Gui-ying, Jin-Tiao Li, Quanxiu Wang, Shi-Zhi Song, Bin Duan, Hongyu Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGABA and Rice Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNanhu Scholars Program for Young Scholars of Xinyang Normal UniversityXinyang Normal UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGrain qualityOryza sativaBiotechnologyQuality (philosophy)Cereal grainAgricultural engineeringComputer scienceAgronomyBiologyEngineeringGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is considered as one of the most important food crops all over the world. Because of the improvement of the actual living standards, there is more and more demand for improved grain quality. Although, the grain quality is a very complex quantitative trait in rice, it has great scientific significance and practical application value for the improvement of the quality of rice grain using high and up to date techniques. Here, we focus on the new advances in the application of the genetic improvement of grain quality by high throughput sequencing, genomic editing, near infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and other new techniques. Simultaneously, the application prospects of these high and up to date techniques have also been expected in the genetic improvement of rice quality. Thus, this will provide important information for genetic improvement of grain quality in rice 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)0.001
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 score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGABA and Rice ResearchFrench-language works237,207