MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402072937 · doi:10.5376/lgg.2024.15.0018

The Role of Genomics in Advancing Pulse Crop Productivity

2024· article· en· W4402072937 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tianxia Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueLegume Genomics and Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Genetic and Mutation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityGenomicsCrop productivityCropBiotechnologyCrop productionBiologyEnvironmental scienceBusinessNatural resource economicsAgricultural engineeringAgricultureAgronomyEngineeringGenomeGeneticsEconomicsGeneEcologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulse crops, vital for global food security and sustainable agriculture, face numerous productivity challenges. This study explores the transformative potential of genomics in advancing pulse crop productivity. This study explores key genomic tools and technologies, including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS), and Genomic Selection (GS), highlighting their applications and successes in pulse crop research. Advancements in genetic mapping, transcriptomics, and functional genomics are discussed, with a focus on CRISPR-Cas9 and other gene-editing technologies. A case study on enhancing drought tolerance in soybeans illustrates the practical benefits of genomic approaches. Integrative genomic strategies, combining high-throughput phenotyping, systems biology, and translational genomics, are presented as comprehensive methods for crop improvement. The economic and environmental impacts of these advancements are evaluated, emphasizing reduced input requirements and enhanced soil health. Future directions prioritize emerging technologies, collaborative research, and addressing societal and ethical considerations. This study underscores the significant potential of genomics to revolutionize pulse crop breeding and sustainability.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLegume Genomics and GeneticsSame topicPlant Genetic and Mutation StudiesFrench-language works237,207