MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221040102 · doi:10.3390/agronomy12040850

Breeding and Evaluation of a New-Bred Semi-Leafless Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Cultivar Longwan No. 6

2022· article· en· W4221040102 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoming Yang, Zhiwen Gou, Zhendong Zhu, Chang Wang, Lijuan Zhang, Gengmei Min

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPowdery mildewCultivarSativumBiologyAgronomySowingPisumIrrigationHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pea (Pisum sativum L.) is an excellent protein source for livestock and human nutrition. However, its growth is hampered by several factors including powdery mildew (Erysiphe pisi DC) and lodging in irrigation areas. These limitations may be solved through combining a Canada powdery mildew-resistant pea (Mp1807) with green cotyledon cultivar (Graf) by means of sexual hybridization. A bred semi-leafless pea, cultivar Longwan No. 6, was selected and evaluated in multiple ecological zones to investigate and evaluate high-yield, adaptability, and resistance to root rot (Aphanomyces euteiches Drechs. f. sp. pisi) and powdery mildew from 2012 to 2014. The results revealed that Longwan No. 6 was characterized by lodging resistance and moderate powdery mildew resistance. The average grain yield of Longwan No. 6 is 2855.3 kg/hm2 in spring sowing and is increased by 18.4% compared to the control cultivar (Longwan No. 1). The average grain yield of Longwan No. 6 is 2349.9 kg/hm2 in winter sowing and is increased by 12.8% when compared to the control cultivar. The results indicated that Longwan No. 6 has a greater potential to increase yield and wide adaptability. Adopting the Longwan No. 6 pea cultivar contributes to improvements in pea production in irrigation areas.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207