MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315489421 · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.1040295

Crop genomic selection with deep learning and environmental data: A survey

2023· review· en· W4315489421 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Environmental dataGenomic selectionBiologyEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning techniques for crop genomic selections, especially for single-environment plants, are well-developed. These machine learning models, which use dense genome-wide markers to predict phenotype, routinely perform well on single-environment datasets, especially for complex traits affected by multiple markers. On the other hand, machine learning models for predicting crop phenotype, especially deep learning models, using datasets that span different environmental conditions, have only recently emerged. Models that can accept heterogeneous data sources, such as temperature, soil conditions and precipitation, are natural choices for modeling GxE in multi-environment prediction. Here, we review emerging deep learning techniques that incorporate environmental data directly into genomic selection models.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.229 · 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