MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Studies on genetic variation in reed canary grass, Phalaris arundinacea L.: III. Seed yield and seed yield components

2008· article· en· W1985817040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liv Østrem

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhalaris arundinaceaBiologyPanicleAgronomyInflorescencePopulationYield (engineering)Phalaris minorForageBotanyHorticultureCropEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Norwegian, Russian, and North-American populations of reed canarygrass, Phalaris arundinacea L., have been described in previous papers in this series as to the variation in alkaloid type and -concentration and forage yield and quality. The present paper presents the seed yielding aspects and gives a general view of the results. The local materials were generally late, though, as to their seed yielding capacity they were inferior only to the selected Canadian population Castor, which was superior in all characters. The two Russian populations showed genetic instability. Broad sense heritabilities over all clones were estimated to 0.77 and 0.84 for earliness in 1984 and 1985. respectively, and to 0.49,0.41 and 0.20 for number of panicles, seed yield, and estimated seed yield per panicle, respectively, in one year (1986). Concerning the total investigation, wide genotypic variations were obtained in all populations for most of the characters studied. Clear differences were revealed between the local adapted populations, still with wild type characters, and the selected populations. No significant relationships were found between the alkaloid concentration and the other characters studied, though the populations were different in this aspect. Synthetic varieties will be established from the present material.

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)0.000
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 score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditasSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207