MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084298045 · doi:10.5539/jas.v12n10p1

Bayesian Estimation and Economic Analysis of Under-Replicated Field Trials With a Linear Response Plateau Function

2020· article· en· W3084298045 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Whoi Cho, Dayton M. Lambert, Alimamy Fornah, W. R. Raun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityLeverage (statistics)StatisticsEconometricsMathematicsFunction (biology)AgricultureBayes estimatorAgronomyComputer scienceBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The linear response with plateau (LRP) is widely used in agronomic and agricultural economic studies of crop yield response. This empirical example uses data from an under-replicated experiment to compare maize (Zea maize L.) yield response to nitrogen under different plant and corridor row spacing. Not all replications received a 0-nitrogen rate, making estimation of the LRP difficult because data for the intercept terms is absent. We leverage information from other treatments using Bayesian methods to estimate the yield response of each treatment using a LRP function, given limited replication and absence of check plots for some treatments. We use a linearized LRP, which bypasses using the “min” operator typically required to estimate LRP functions. Economically optimal nitrogen rates were determined and net returns from treatments compared from the perspective of risk-averse producers. The wide plant/narrow row treatment was most profitable when the decision rule was to apply nitrogen. The statistical procedure used here may be useful for exploratory analyses of pilot agronomic trials that may include unbalanced and under-replicated treatments.

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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207