MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911660629 · doi:10.17951/c.2017.72.1.37-45

Assessment of genotype × trait interaction of rye genotypes for some morphologic traits through GGE biplot methodology

2018· article· en· W2911660629 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Samaneh Yari, Naser Sabaghnia, Mokhtar Pasandi, Mohsen Janmohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska sectio C – Biologia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiplotCultivarTraitBiologyGenotypeRandomized block designSelection (genetic algorithm)Principal component analysisAgronomyBiotechnologyQuantitative trait locusYield (engineering)Gene–environment interactionHorticultureMathematicsStatisticsGeneticsComputer scienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Effective interpretation of the data on breeding programs is important at all stages of plant improvement and the genotype by trait (GT) biplot was used for two-way wheat dataset as genotypes with multiple traits. For this propose, 18 rye genotypes with specific characteristics were evaluated in randomized block design with four replications. The GT biplot for rye dataset explained 61% of the total variation of the standardized data (the first two principal components explained 40 and 21% respectively). The polygon view of GT presented for 11 different traits of rye cultivars showed six vertex cultivars as G1, G3, G6, G8, G11 and G13 whose genotype G8 had the highest values for most of the measured traits. Generally based on vector view, ideal genotype and ideal tester biplots, it was demonstrated that the selection of high seed yield will be performed via seed number per spike, first internode weight, number of spike per area and harvest index. These traits should be considered simultaneously as effective selection criteria evolving high yielding rye cultivars because of their large contribution to seed yield. The genotypes G8 and G7 following to genotypes G3, G18 and G19 could be considered for the developing of desirable progenies in the selection strategy of rye improvement programs.</p>

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska sectio C – BiologiaSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207