MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410754772 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-02628-1

Physiological and biochemical pathway: understanding their influence on maize grain yield through genotype–trait interactions

2025· article· en· W4410754772 on OpenAlexaff
Pooria Mazloom, Seyed Habib Shojaie, Seyed Mohammad Nasir Mousavi

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDebreceni Egyetem
KeywordsBiplotGenotypePrincipal component analysisBiologyTraitRandomized block designGene–environment interactionQuantitative trait locusGrain yieldAgronomyHorticultureStatisticsGeneticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment using a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications was conducted on 10 corn genotypes to evaluate the effect of genotype × trait interaction on grain yield. Analysis of variance revealed that all genotypes differed significantly (p < 0.01) across all traits. Duncan's multiple range test identified KSC704 and KSC706 as favorable genotypes, while SC540 and KSC260 were considered unfavorable. Correlation analysis showed a positive association between grain yield and chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, phosphorus, carotenoids, sodium, catalase, and potassium. Principal component analysis indicated that the first five components accounted for over 79% of the total data variance. Based on the first two principal components, the genotypes were grouped into four distinct clusters, and the traits into three. A graphical assessment of genotype performance was also conducted. According to the polygon view, genotypes KSC705, KSC400, KSC706, DC370, SC540, and KSC260 were identified as favorable. Among them, KSC705 and KSC400 were selected as the most desirable genotypes based on trait-based and ideal-genotype ranking diagrams. The biplot analysis further confirmed the grouping of genotypes into four distinct clusters.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207