Towards equitable public sector plant breeding in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plant breeding is central to agriculture and shifts in plant breeding practices (e.g., hybrid development) and selection goals (e.g., response to synthetic fertilizer) have catalyzed monumental and persistent changes in agricultural production systems of all scales with social, political, economic, and environmental repercussions. Although plant breeders are largely trained in the sciences of biology, genetics, and statistics, we posit an ethical imperative to examine the degree of equity with which the benefits of new research and plant cultivars are distributed. In the United States, the history of plant breeding parallels the colonial history of agriculture, which compels reflection by current plant breeders about their role in shaping our agricultural system. In this perspective essay, we examine longstanding ideas about equitable food systems through the lens of public plant breeding in the United States. We propose a framework for equitable plant breeding with respect to both its process and outcomes, and we intend for the ideas presented herein to catalyze reflection, discussions, and actions as the plant breeding community seeks greater equity in the food and seed systems our work supports.
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 | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".