MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980228998 · doi:10.1139/g07-107

The development of a bin mapping population and the selective mapping of 103 markers in the diploid<i>Fragaria</i>reference map

2008· article· en· W1980228998 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel James Sargent, G. Cipriani, Santiago Vilanova, David Jesús Gil-Ariza, Pere Arús, D. W. Simpson, K. R. Tobutt, Amparo Monfort

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversità degli Studi di UdineDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
KeywordsBinFragariaBiologyPopulationGenomeGeneticsPloidyGene mappingGeneMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have identified a set of plants (the bin set) to permit "selective" or "bin" mapping using the diploid strawberry mapping population FV x FN, derived from the F2 cross F. vesca 815 x F. nubicola 601, which has been used to develop the Fragaria reference map. The bin set consists of 8 plants: the F. vesca 815 parent, the F1 hybrid individual, and 6 seedlings of the F2 population. This bin set divides the 578 cM of the diploid Fragaria genome into 46 bins, the largest mapping bin being 26 cM in length and the average bin size being 12.6 cM. To validate the FV x FN bin set, we used it to locate 103 loci into bins on the FV x FN map. These loci comprised 61 previously described SSRs, 38 new SSRs developed in this investigation from Fragaria x ananassa genomic DNA, EST and gene sequences, and 4 ripening-related genes developed for Prunus. The 103 markers were located to bins on all 7 linkage groups of the Fragaria map and a new mapping bin was identified with the novel markers, demonstrating that the map covers the majority of the diploid Fragaria genome and that the 6 bin-set seedlings selected were appropriate for bin mapping using this progeny.

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)0.001
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 score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations63
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207