MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982321444 · doi:10.1139/x01-115

Pollen contamination in a maritime pine polycross seed orchard and certification of improved seeds using chloroplast microsatellites

2001· article· en· W1982321444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christophe Plomion, David Pot, Giovanni G. Vendramin, Sophie Gerber, Stéphane Decroocq, Jean Brach, Annie A. Raffin, Patrick Pastuszka

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeed orchardPollenBiologyPinus pinasterMicrosatelliteChloroplastBotanyRange (aeronautics)HorticultureGeneticsAlleleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new concept of seed orchard was developed by Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique for the maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.) breeding program: the polycross seed orchard (PSO). The expected genetic gain of the PSO can only be reached if the fathers used in the pollen mix contribute equally to the next generation (i.e., to the base material of the PSO) and if pollen contamination from the surrounding stands is limited. Using chloroplast simple-sequence repeats (cpSSR), we showed that the chloroplast DNA was unipaternally inherited in maritime pine and verified that the chloroplast haplotype composition of the megagametophyte tissue corresponded to the chloroplast haplotype of the female parent. As a practical application, a statistical test based on cpSSR markers and simulation was established to verify the PSO origin of maritime pine seed lots. As a result of the cpSSR test, it was observed that (i) departure from even distribution of the fathers in the PSO was barely significant, (ii) the minimum pollen contamination rate in the PSO was 36%, and (iii) the contamination was not evenly distributed in the PSO. As a consequence, the expected genetic gain will range between 50 and 82% of what was initially foreseen.

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 score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.309
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 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

Citations40
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207