MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406290609 · doi:10.14719/pst.5231

Integrative approaches for mustard improvement: Bridging conventional breeding, genetics and biotechnological advances

2025· article· en· W4406290609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G R Prasanth, S. Utharasu, R. Ravikesavan, N Sakthivel, P. Sivasakthivelan, M. Sudha

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Science Today · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)BiotechnologyBiologyComputational biologyGeneticsEvolutionary biologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mustard is globally an oilseed crop that provides essential edible oil and industrial raw materials, particularly in regions like South Asia, Europe, and Canada, where it plays a critical role in agricultural economies and food industries. However, worldwide biotic and abiotic stresses pose major challenges to mustard production. Advances in conventional breeding techniques, genetics, and biotechnological tools hold immense potential for developing improved mustard varieties. This review elucidates the evolution of mustard breeding, moving from conventional approaches to advanced molecular tools that allow for precise genetic modifications, enhancing mustard resilience and yield. It highlights the roles of phenotypic and genotypic selection, molecular markers, transgenics, and genomicsassisted breeding in augmenting mustard improvement endeavours. The promise of emerging technologies like genome editing and systems biology is discussed for mustard genetic enhancement and climate-resilient varietal development. The review emphasizes the need of collaboration among research institutions, public-private partnerships, and international networks to accelerate, sustainable mustard improvement efforts.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Science TodaySame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207