MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215346663 · doi:10.1016/j.fochms.2021.100056

Artificial neural networks and genetic dissimilarity among saladette type dwarf tomato plant populations

2021· article· en· W3215346663 on OpenAlexaff
Camila Soares de Oliveira, Gabriel Mascarenhas Maciel, Ana Carolina Silva Siquieroli, Danilo Gomes, Nádia Mendes Diniz, José Magno Queiróz Luz, Rickey Y. Yada

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Chemistry Molecular Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLeaf Properties and Growth Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsUPGMABiologyDendrogramHybridPopulationHorticultureBotanyGenetic variationGenetic diversityGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have shown that dwarf plants have the potential for use in obtaining hybrids. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agronomic potential and genetic dissimilarity of saladette type dwarf tomato plant populations through the use of artificial neural networks (ANNs). The following traits were analyzed: mean fruit weight, transverse and longitudinal fruit diameter, fruit shape, pulp thickness, locule number, internode length, soluble solids content, and β-carotene, lycopene, and leaf zingiberene contents. A dendrogram obtained by the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) and Kohonen self-organizing maps (SOM) agreed in the distinction of the BC1F3 populations from the dwarf donor parent. SOM was more consistent in identifying the genetic similarities among the BC1F3 dwarf tomato plant populations and allowed for the determination of weights of each variable in the cluster formation. The UFU SDi 13-1 BC1F3 population was revealed to be a promising option for obtaining saladette type dwarf tomato plant lines.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Chemistry Molecular SciencesSame topicLeaf Properties and Growth MeasurementFrench-language works237,207