MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1585133604 · doi:10.1071/ar02177

A consensus map of barley integrating SSR, RFLP, and AFLP markers

2003· article· en· W1585133604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Karakousis, J. P. Gustafson, K. J. Chalmers, A. R. Barr, Peter Langridge

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Agricultural Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplified fragment length polymorphismRestriction fragment length polymorphismGeneticsBiologyGenetic linkageGenetic linkage mapGene mappingMicrosatelliteGenetic markerChromosomeAllelePolymerase chain reactionGenetic diversityGenePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A consensus map of barley combining simple sequence repeat (SSR), restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers has been developed by combining 5 Australian barley linkage maps, Galleon × Haruna Nijo, Chebec × Harrington, Clipper × Sahara, Alexis × Sloop, and Amaji Nijo × WI2585, using the software package JOINMAP 2.0. The new consensus map consists of 700 markers, with 136 being SSRs, and has a total genetic distance of 933 cM. The consensus map order appears to be in good agreement with the Australian barley linkage maps, with the exception of a small inversion located close to the centromere of chromosome 5H. Similarly, the SSR map orders are in good agreement with SSR markers integrated into the doubled haploid linkage map of Lina × Hordeum spontaneum , Canada Park. The new consensus map provides a framework to cross examine and align partial and complete barley linkage maps using markers common to many barley maps. This map will allow researchers to rapidly and accurately select SSR markers for chromosome regions of interest for barley genetic and plant breeding studies.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations103
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Agricultural ResearchSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207