Compatibility Test and Agronomic Performance of Coffee Genotypes (Coffea canephora Pierre ex Froehner) in the State of Rondônia, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to evaluate the degree of compatibility and agronomic performance in clonal genotypes of canephora coffee plants (Coffea canephora ex Froehner) for cultivation in the state of Rondônia, Brazil. The study was conducted with nine genotypes with three replications of Coffea canephora Arranged in the field: UFRO-60; UFRO-31; UFRO-61; UFRO-25; UFRO-03; UFRO-08; UFRO-21; UFRO-05 and UFRO-138 In adulthood and in two years of harvest (2013/2014 and 2014/2015). We evaluated: productivity, profitability, conversion index fruit cherry/grain benefited, mass of one hundred grains benefited, average diameter of the fruits, number of rosettes per branch, average distance between rosettes and number of fruits per rosette. Additionally, the degree of compatibility between the clones of clonal. The genotypes of Coffea canephora with the best agronomic performances evaluated for the edafoclimatic conditions of the State of Rondônia in this study were UFRO-08, UFRO-25, UFRO-03 and UFRO-138. According to the compatibility tests, the sequence of correct disposition in the field of Coffea canephora among the genotypes studied in this study are: UFRO-138; UFRO-31; UFRO-25; UFRO-08; UFRO-60; UFRO-21; UFRO-61; UFRO-03 and; UFRO-05. Close to 74% of the tests Were and self-pollination tests resulted in low fruiting, evidencing the characteristic of self-incompatibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".