MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976991457 · doi:10.60692/ktys4-dr865

Mining and predictive characterization for resistance to leaf rust (Puccinia hordei Otth) using two subsets of barley genetic resources

2021· article· en· W6976991457 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingGermplasmRust (programming language)Resistance (ecology)Identification (biology)Abiotic component

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sustainable barley production will require access to diverse ex-situ conserved collections to develop varieties with high yields and capable of overcoming the challenges imposed by major abiotic and biotic stresses. This study aimed at searching efficient approaches for the identification of new sources of resistance to barley leaf rust (LR). Two subsets, Generation Challenge Program Reference set (GCP) with 190 accessions and leaf rust subset constructed using the filtering approach of the Focused Identification of Germplasm Strategy (FIGS) with 100 accessions, were evaluated for the seedling as well as the adult plant stage resistance (APR) using two LR isolates (ISO-SAT and ISO-MRC) and in four environments in Morocco, respectively. Both subsets yielded a high percent of accessions with a moderately resistant (MR) reaction to the two LR isolates at the seedling stage. For APR, more than 50% of the accessions showed resistant reactions in SAT2018 and GCH2018, while this rate was less than 20% in SAT2017 and SAT2019. Statistical analysis using chi-square test of independence revealed the dependency of LR reaction on subsets at the seedling (ISO-MRC), as well as at the APR (SAT2017 and SAT2018) stage. Furthermore, the test of goodness of fit showed that FIGS_LR yielded higher percentages of resistant accessions than GCP subset in case of ISO-MRC at the seedling stage, and in case of SAT2017 and SAT2018 at APR stage. Although some of the tested machine learning models had moderate to high accuracies, none of them was able to find a strong and significant relationship between the reaction to LR and the environmental conditions showing the needs for more fine tuning of approaches for efficient mining of genetic resources using machine learning.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207