MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393054540 · doi:10.1002/csc2.21231

Two types of biplots to integrate multi‐trial and multi‐trait information for genotype selection

2024· article· en· W4393054540 on OpenAlexaff
Weikai Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiplotBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)TraitGenotypeEvolutionary biologyGeneticsComputational biologyBiotechnologyArtificial intelligenceGeneComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Genotype × environment interaction (GE) and unfavorable associations among breeding objectives are the two key challenges in genotype evaluation and selection. Dealing with GE includes utilizing repeatable GE and accommodating nonrepeatable GE, and analytical tools for both steps have been developed in recent years. The genotype by yield × trait (GYT) analysis was also developed to address the issue of genotype selection based on multiple traits. However, a method to integrate both multi‐trial and multi‐trait information has been lacking. The purpose of this study was to fill the gap. Two types of biplots were described and demonstrated, using an oat ( Avena sativa L.) dataset as an example. The G + GE biplot of GYT index graphically displays the mean and stability of the genotypes, considering all breeding objectives. The GYT biplot across trials graphically displays the overall superiority and the strengths and weaknesses of the genotypes, after accommodating the nonrepeatable GE. The two types of biplots rank the genotypes in the same order of superiority; they complementarily provide a complete picture of the genotypes and allow confident genotype evaluation, selection, and recommendation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207