Bibliographic record
Abstract
用珍汕9713／密阳46的RIL作图群体，以基本营养液培养为对照（CK），设2种Fe^2＋扣（160mg／L和240mg／L）作为胁迫处理，以处理20d的幼苗相对苗高（％）（处理苗高／对照苗高×100％）作为幼苗耐Fe^2＋胁迫程度的评价指标，进行2个环境的QTL联合检测分析。结果表明，RIL群体株系间对Fe^2＋胁迫反应差异较大，明显出现超亲分离。共检测到4个耐Fe^2＋胁迫的主效QTL，即qTFS-1-1、qTFS-3、qTFS-6和qTFS-9，分别位于第1、3、6和9染色体上，可解释14．96％的表型变异，它们与Fe^2＋胁迫浓度并无显著的GxE互作，表明这4个耐性基因在不同浓度Fe^2＋胁迫处理下，均可稳定表达。试验还检测到3对耐Fe扣胁迫的加性×加性上位性互作，共可解释7．16％的表型变异，涉及第1、2、7、9、12等5条染色体，该3对上付件互作与Fe^2＋不同浓唐胁迫处珲也无显著GxE互作。
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".