MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404212529 · doi:10.1002/csan.21437

Bridging Plant‐Breeding Gaps in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand

2024· article· en· W4404212529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCSA News · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)GeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant breeding is a multidisciplinary applied science that is crucial for enhancing food, fodder, fuel, and fiber production globally. Scientists trained as plant breeders harness many plant science disciplines to breed elite-performing varieties. However, in recent decades, several studies in the United States have shown that there are not enough plant breeders being trained to meet the demands of the growing private sector and the continuing needs of the public sector. A multidisciplinary team of scientists from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand conducted two surveys investigating the current state of the plant-breeding sector across tertiary, government, and industry levels. Their findings highlight increasing concerns about the shortage of trained plant breeders, particularly in the private sector. A coordinated approach between the public and private sectors was suggested as a strategy to improve the training for graduate plant breeders. Other suggestions for improvement included the establishment of dedicated training facilities, national funds for graduate fellowships, and increased private-sector involvement in plant-breeding education. The study raised awareness of the global shortage of trained plant breeders and provided valuable insights for decision-makers toward strategic planning to address global food and fiber production challenges. CSIRO Research Scientist Warren Conaty with cotton grower Adrian Schwager discussing cotton trials. Image courtesy of CSIRO.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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 venueCSA NewsSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207