MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411618200 · doi:10.51847/sguvpibkl0

10.51847/SguVPIBKl0

2000· article· en· W4411618200 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath analysis (statistics)Path coefficientCultivarStepwise regressionGrain yieldRegression analysisCorrelationMathematicsYield (engineering)AgronomyHorticultureStatisticsBiologyMaterials scienceGeometryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indirect selection in early generations through traits having heritability higher than yield as well as correlated significantly with seed yield is one of the most important breeding procedures.Production of new cultivars adaptable to different environments also has importance for wheat breeders.Cross among new cultivars and selection of superior genotypes among their progenies based on suitable traits is efficient breeding procedures.Therefore in order to determination of the most yielding bread wheat genotypes identification of the traits affective on seed and protein yield as well as parents of the best crosses an experiment was conducted 2011-2012.The randomized complete block design with three replications was used.Bread wheat genotypes comprised; Parsi and Sivand cultivars along with 18 lines entitled M-90-3 to M-90-20.Correlation step-wise regression and path analysis designated that grain filling rate and no.spike/m 2 are the efficient indirect selection criteria to increase seed yield.Increasingly peduncle length no.seed/spike and no.spikelet/spike were recommended to improve spike yield while peduncle diameter days to flowering days to maturity and plant height for photosynthetic reservoir.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

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)0.9920.936

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.138 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207