Bayesian Perspective in the Selection of Bean Genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in the relative performance of genotypes have made it necessary for more in-depth investigations to be carried out through reliable analyses of adaptability and stability. The present study was conducted to compare the efficiency of different informative priors in the Bayesian method of Eberhart & Russel with frequentist methods. Fifteen black-bean genotypes from the municipalities of Belém do São Francisco and Petrolina (PE, Brazil) were evaluated in 2011 and 2012 in a randomized-block design with three replicates. Eberhart & Russel’s methodology was applied using the GENES software and the Bayesian procedure using the R software through the MCMCregress function of the MCMCpack package. The quality of Bayesian analysis differed according to the a priori information entered in the model. The Bayesian approach using frequentist analysis had greater accuracy in the estimate of adaptability and stability, where model 1 which uses the a priori information, was the most suitable to obtain reliable estimates according to the BayesFactor function. The inference, using information from previous studies, showed to be imprecise and equivalent to the linear-model methodology. In addition, it was realized that the input of a priori information is important because it increases the quality of the adjustment of the model.
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".