Analysis of the Difference of Foxtail Millet Characteristics in Different Years and the Judging of the Stability and Distinctness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the differences in the expression of foxtail millet characteristics between different years, and scientifically determine the stability within foxtail millet varieties and the distinctness between varieties. Using 69 foxtail millet germplasm resources as test materials, data on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of foxtail millet were obtained by testing the DUS (distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability) of foxtail millet. The 3-year testing data showed that each quantitative characteristic’s absolute average variation degree (VD ) was as follows: single panicle weight 69.06%, peduncle length 45.99%, stem length 44.25%, single-grain number 39.90%. Other characteristics’ absolute variation degree (VD ) were lower than 26.00%. The variation rates (VR) of each qualitative characteristic were as follows: dehusked grain color 35.21%, seedling leaf posture 32.39%, first leaf tip shape 25.35%, grain shape 25.35%, panicle shape 23.94%. Other characteristics’ variation rates (VR) were lower than 16.00%. Compared with 2021, the average variation degree (VD ) of 13 quantitative characteristics in 2022 was positive except for the negative average variation degree of heading stage, number of elongated internodes and number of culms per panicle. Compared with 2022, the average variation degree (VD ) of the 10 quantitative characteristics in 2023 was negative except for the positive average variation degree of bristle length, width of blade, panicle density, single-grain number, single panicle weight and grain yield per panicle. The expression of different characteristics in foxtail millet varied in different years, and the corresponding variation should be referenced for different characteristics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".