MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921928966 · doi:10.1139/cjps2010-035

Structural equation modeling in the plant sciences: An example using yield components in oat

2011· article· en· W6921928966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingPath analysis (statistics)SeedingUnivariateLatent variablePlant densityPanicleYield (engineering)Variable (mathematics)

Abstract

Lamb, E. G., Shirtliffe, S. J. and May, W. E. 2011. Structural equation modeling in the plant sciences: An example using yield components in oat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 603-619. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a powerful statistical approach for the analysis of complex intercorrelated data with a wide range of potential applications in the plant sciences. In this paper we introduce plant scientists to the principles and practice of SEM using as an example an agronomic field trial. We briefly review the history of SEM and path analysis and introduce the statistical concepts underlying SEM. We demonstrate the use of observed and latent variable structural equation models using a multi-site multi-year field trial examining the effects of seed size and seeding density on the plant density and yield of oat in Saskatchewan. Using SEM allowed for insights that a standard univariate analysis would not have revealed. We show that seeding density has strong effects on plant and panicle density, but has very limited effects on final yield. Plant density has a consistent non-linear effect on panicle density across location that was not affected by precipitation. In contrast, the implicit effect of precipitation on seed number appears to be the main driver for final yield. Incorporating precipitation data into the model demonstrates how mechanistic models can be developed by including in the path diagram variables that would normally treated as random factors in a mixed model analysis. Finally, we provide a guideline to assist plant scientists in determining whether SEM is an appropriate method to be used for the analysis of their data.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

2 of 3 models called this metaresearch. This work is contested: it sits on the field's empirical boundary, and whether it counts depends on which model you asked. It is one of the 51 works in the disagreement dossier.

stratum: about_only · design weight: 3321.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8T1
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Tutorial introducing plant scientists to structural equation modeling, reviewing its principles and offering guidelines on when it is appropriate; the oat field trial is an illustrative vehicle and the object is statistical practice in a research community.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Structural equation modeling is used to analyze oat yield, so the method is not the object of study.

Grok 4.5T1
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Primary aim is introducing SEM as statistical practice for plant scientists, with guidelines on when SEM is appropriate.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.915
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.650 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207