MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

THE CYTOLOGICAL BASIS OF POLYMORPHISM IN POA ALPINA

2010· article· en· W1968689164 on OpenAlexaff
ARNE MÜNTZING

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCorrect nameBotanyGenealogyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MUNTZINGisland was visited rather early in the season and therefore living plants had to be taken, no seeds being ripe.The other island, Gotland, was visited somewhat later and in this case seed material could be obtained.Additional material from Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Greenland was obtained thanks to the courtesy of several colleagues.My sincere thanks for this valuable collaboration are due to Doctors C. L. KIELLANDER, J. A. NANNFELDT, S. ERLANDSSON, G. OSTERGREN, N. ALBERTSSON, A. L6vE, M. WESTERGAARD, C. A. J6RGENSEN, and E. RUNQUIST.During my own collecting trips Mrs. G. MUNTZING functioned as a sharp-sighted observer who discovered many biotypes which would otherwise have been overlooked.The seed material collected in North Sweden was germinated in the spring of 1943 and the full-grown plants studied in the summer of 1944.Some of the plants collected in North Sweden in 1942 produced panicles and ripe seeds in the same year after transplantation to Svalof'.Progenies of these plants were included in the material germinated in the spring of 1943.Other transplanted plants did not produce seeds until 1943, and in these cases progenies were raised in the spring of 1945.At the same time the material from Oland and Gotland was germinated as well as new progenies from the North Swedish material studied in 1944.The Gotland material was raised from panicles collected in the natural habitats, the Oland material from panicles produced at Svalof in the year of transplantation.With few exceptions the progenies were raised from seeds of a single openpollinated panicle, each progeny consisting of 16 plants or a slightly lower number, owing to mortality in the field.As a rule, root-tip fixations were made of three plants per progeny and also, before that, of all the plants collected in the field and sent to Sval6f.The root tips were fixed in diluted chrome-acetic-formalin, the plants before fixation being kept over-night at low temperature (slightly above zero) to bring about chromosome contraction which greatly facilitates the counts.The root tips were sectioned and stained with crystal violet.My sincere thanks are due to Miss.M. PALM and Miss J. \VARDEN for valuable help with the somatic chromosome counts. II. CHROMOSOMAL VARIATION.A summary of all chromosome numbers determined in the seedproducing biotypes is given in Table 1.With certain exceptions, to be discussed below, this table roughly expresses the chromosomal variation 16015223, 1954, 3-4,

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 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

Citations49
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHereditas→Same topicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics→French-language works237,207→