The tricot approach: an agile framework for decentralized on-farm testing supported by citizen science. A retrospective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Matching crop varieties to their target use context and user preferences is a challenge faced by many plant breeding programs serving smallholder agriculture. Numerous participatory approaches proposed by CGIAR and other research teams over the last four decades have attempted to capture farmers’ priorities/preferences and crop variety field performance in representative growing environments through experimental trials with higher external validity. Yet none have overcome the challenges of scalability, data validity and reliability, and difficulties in capturing socio-economic and environmental heterogeneity. Building on the strengths of these attempts, we developed a new data-generation approach, called triadic comparison of technology options (tricot). Tricot is a decentralized experimental approach supported by crowdsourced citizen science. In this article, we review the development, validation, and evolution of the tricot approach, through our own research results and reviewing the literature in which tricot approaches have been successfully applied. The first results indicated that tricot-aggregated farmer-led assessments contained information with adequate validity and that reliability could be achieved with a large sample. Costs were lower than current participatory approaches. Scaling the tricot approach into a large on-farm testing network successfully registered specific climatic effects of crop variety performance in representative growing environments. Tricot’s recent application in plant breeding networks in relation to decision-making has (i) advanced plant breeding lines recognizing socio-economic heterogeneity, and (ii) identified consumers’ preferences and market demands, generating alternative breeding design priorities. We review lessons learned from tricot applications that have enabled a large scaling effort, which should lead to stronger decision-making in crop improvement and increased use of improved varieties in smallholder agriculture.
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 | 0.032 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".