MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992039964 · doi:10.1139/g10-057

Future tools for association mapping in crop plantsThis article is one of a selection of papers from the conference “Exploiting Genome-wide Association in Oilseed Brassicas: a model for genetic improvement of major OECD crops for sustainable farming”.

2010· article· en· W1992039964 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris Duran, Dominic Eales, Daniel Marshall, Michael Imelfort, Jiri Stiller, Paul J. Berkman, Terry Clark, Megan McKenzie, Nikki Appleby, Jacqueline Batley, K. E. Basford, David Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrains Research and Development CorporationQueensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation
KeywordsBiologyIdentification (biology)AnnotationComputational biologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsGenomeGenetic associationSNPSelection (genetic algorithm)Genetic markerGene AnnotationGenomicsGenome-wide association studyGeneGenotypeComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Association mapping currently relies on the identification of genetic markers. Several technologies have been adopted for genetic marker analysis, with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) being the most popular where a reasonable quantity of genome sequence data are available. We describe several tools we have developed for the discovery, annotation, and visualization of molecular markers for association mapping. These include autoSNPdb for SNP discovery from assembled sequence data; TAGdb for the identification of gene specific paired read Illumina GAII data; CMap3D for the comparison of mapped genetic and physical markers; and BAC and Gene Annotator for the online annotation of genes and genomic sequences.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207