MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096425978

Associations of Local Wheat Varieties (Triticum Spp.) Grown in

2016· article· en· W7096425978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeritabilityRandomized block designCropGrain yieldYield (engineering)Genetic variabilityCrop yield
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheat is the most important cereal crop in Ethiopia ranking third in terms of area after teff and maize and second in terms of production after maize. Six local wheat varieties commonly cultivated in South Gondar, one of the eleven zones found in Amhara region, were collected from the local farmers to study their variability and associations of yield and yield related traits using twelve agro-morphological traits. The studied genotypes were grown in main rain season of 2014/15 at Farta district in a complete randomized block design with three replications. Analysis of variance indicated the presence of highly significant difference among the studied genotypes which revealed the presence of high genetic variability of wheat in the study area. Highest yield was recorded from the local variety Ferno with 1957 kg/ha followed by Chekole (1588.33kg) and Canada Sendie (1580.7kg). Higher value of GCV and PCV were recorded in most of the studied traits indicating selection may be effective from these traits and phenotypic expression would be good indication of the genotypic potential. Broad sense heritability estimates were very high for most traits signifying the possibility of success in selection. Correlation study revealed that number of tillers per plant, number of seeds per plant and harvest index had positive and highly significant correlation with grain yield. The present investigation will guide in planning

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207