An evaluation based on the analytic hierarchy process and GGEbiplot on French fry potato genotypes in Yunnan, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 33 potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars and breeding clones imported from the United States and two local cultivars (Yunshu 401 and Cooperation 88, CK) were planted and evaluated. To determine their suitability for processing into French fries at five locations (e1-e5) in Yunnan Province, China, we developed a comprehensive evaluation system using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Eleven evaluation indicators for French fry quality, yield, and agronomic characteristics with a relative importance (weight coefficients) of 0.483, 0.301 and 0.216, respectively, were used to analyze the 35 potato genotypes (designated g1-g35).The genotypes were ranked and the results revealed that (1) on the average, the 33 potato genotypes imported from the United States showed a lower performance compared to the local cultivars. Compared with the CK, they were classified as not vigorous (Mean 5.11 vs CK 7.75), matured earlier (Mean 5.79 vs CK 1.70), and had a low resistance to late blight (Mean 3735.59 vs CK 1418.55), requiring the use of fungicides to control the disease at the five trial locations. (2) The US cultivar ‘Defender’ (g3) ranked in the top six at all five test locations because it had higher yield (29.56 t h m-2), better fry quality (4.64), higher dry matter content (20.41%), better tuber length/width ratio (1.99), longer tubers (13.57cm), stronger plant vigor (7.17) and higher resistance to late blight (AUDPC: 3134.2). (3) By using GGEbiplot analysis, superior genotypes with high and stable yields were g3 and ‘Echo Russet’ (g33). ‘Yunshu 401’ (g34) and ‘Yukon Gem’ (g4) had high but not stable yields. The ideal test environments and hence experimental locations were Luquan (LQ, e2) and Lijiang (LJ, e4) which resulted in the best discrimination between genotypes among the five experimental locations in Yunnan. Overall, the developed evaluation system based on AHP and GGEbiplot analysis including 11 evaluation indicators for French fry quality, yield and agricultural traits can be a model for evaluation and promotion of new French fry cultivars, and evaluating and selecting the test location.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".