A proposed model for the flowering signaling pathway of sugarcane under photoperiodic control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular analysis of floral induction in Arabidopsis has identified several flowering time genes related to 4 response networks defined by the autonomous, gibberellin, photoperiod, and vernalization pathways. Although grass flowering processes include ancestral functions shared by both mono- and dicots, they have developed their own mechanisms to transmit floral induction signals. Despite its high production capacity and its important role in biofuel production, almost no information is available about the flowering process in sugarcane. We searched the Sugarcane Expressed Sequence Tags database to look for elements of the flowering signaling pathway under photoperiodic control. Sequences showing significant similarity to flowering time genes of other species were clustered, annotated, and analyzed for conserved domains. Multiple alignments comparing the sequences found in the sugarcane database and those from other species were performed and their phylogenetic relationship assessed using the MEGA 4.0 software. Electronic Northerns were run with Cluster and TreeView programs, allowing us to identify putative members of the photoperiod-controlled flowering pathway of sugarcane.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it