MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111911437 · doi:10.1002/csc2.20426

Oat mega‐environments in Canada

2020· article· en· W3111911437 on OpenAlexaffabout
Weikai Yan, Jennifer Mitchell‐Fetch, Aaron D. Beattie, Kirby T. Nilsen, Denis Pageau, Brad DeHaan, Matthew A. Hayes, Nathan Mountain, Allan Cummiskey, Dan MacEachern

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsHealth PEIUniversity of SaskatchewanBrandon UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiplotAvenaBiologyCultivarPerennial plantRust (programming language)Variety (cybernetics)AgronomyNew VarietyStem rustBotanyGenotypeStatisticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Genotype × environment interaction (GE) is a perennial problem in plant breeding and must be dealt with. Dealing with GE starts with differentiation of repeatable GE from unrepeatable GE in a target region. Repeatable GE can be used by dividing the target region into mega‐environments (MEs) and breeding ME‐specific cultivars, and unrepeatable GE must be accommodated by testing adequately within a ME. This study applied LG (location‐grouping) biplot analysis to several datasets from multiyear oat ( Avena sativa L.) variety trials conducted at locations across Canada. Analysis showed that the oat growing regions in Canada can be divided into three MEs: the crown rust ( Puccinia coronata Corda f. sp. avenae Eriks.) prone regions in southern and eastern Ontario (ME1), other regions in eastern Canada (ME2), and the Canadian Prairies (ME3). In addition, two sub‐MEs existed within ME2. Latitude was shown to be the main factor for the ME differentiation. The results suggest that oat variety trials should be conducted and cultivar recommendation be made according to MEs, as opposed to by administrative regions that are currently in place.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207