Evaluating genetic variability and biometric indicators in bread wheat varieties: Implications for modern selection methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major grain-producing countries such as Canada, the United States of America, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, China, India, Turkey, and Russia, in the direction of selection for the creation of new varieties of wheat resistant to abiotic factors, are paying great attention to creating new wheat varieties by developing new genotypes by identifying donors with highquality and positive indicators of valuable economic traits and introducing them into modern selection methods. Progress has been made in this direction worldwide. Today, many varieties of wheat with valuable economic traits and high grain quality have been created and introduced to large areas. In this study, 23 genotypes were selected from 45 genotypes of bread wheat varieties and lines. The nursery’s growth period lasted between 233-238 days, and the lines appeared more mature than the local check varieties. Compared to the local check varieties, among the plant’s biometric indicators, 15 lines showed positive results in terms of plant height, 10 lines in peduncle length, 5 lines in spike length, 1 line in spike number, and 1 line in resistance to lodging. The statistical analysis of grain yield and grain quality using the Dospekhov method showed that the experimental error rates for various indices as follows: 0.888% for yield, 3.018% for weight of 1000 grains, 0.627% for Test weight, 2.028% for protein content, 1.519% for gluten content, 2.001% for IDK, and 4.01% for grain glassiness. It was noted that the experiment was conducted correctly in terms of repetitions and showed a positive result. 10 genotypes with yield of genotypes 72.6-96.7 c/ha, weight of 1000 grains 37.9-43.2 g, test weight 803-835 g/l, protein content 16.2-19.3%, gluten content 28.5-30.4% were selected. Accordingly, it was observed that the amount of iron was 1.0-1.8 mg. It was observed that the sample was 1.3 mg in the Gozgon variety and 1.4 mg in the Antonina variety. KR20-27-FAWIR-67, KR20-BWF5IR-2625, KR20-27-FAWIR-138 lines 1.6 mg relative to the local check variety. Lines KR20-BWF5IR-2460, KR20-27-FAWIR-39, KR20-BWF5IR-246 1.7 mg. It was observed that the KR20-27-FAWIR-154 line showed a high result of 1.8 mg.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".