MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Polyploidy and self‐compatibility: is there an association?

2004· article· en· W1998338486 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsPolyploidPloidyBiologyInbreeding depressionEvolutionary biologyTaxonInbreedingGeneticsBotanyGenePopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Researchers have hypothesized that self-compatibility (SC) should be more common in polyploid taxa than their diploid counterparts because of selection for reproductive assurance and/or the expected decline in inbreeding depression associated with having 'extra' gene copies. Support for this view has come from an observed breakdown of self-incompatibility (SI) in some species with a gametophytic system (GSI). The purpose of this research was to assess the strength of this relationship across a wider array of SI systems. • A large database, of diploid chromosome numbers, ploidy levels, and types of SI system, was assembled for angiosperm species and used to test for an association between ploidy and SC. • No strong association was found between SC and polyploidy at the level of species or families, and there was no evidence that those having a functional SI system also had fewer polyploid taxa or that most polyploids experience a breakdown in SI. • These results challenge the assumption that self-fertilization is strongly associated with polyploidy and suggest directions for further research on the evolution of polyploidy in relation to SI.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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