MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006291167 · doi:10.1139/g09-056

Genome size variation in<i>Begonia</i>

2009· article· en· W2006291167 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angelo Dewitte, Leen Leus, Tom Eeckhaut, Ives Vanstechelman, Johan Van Huylenbroeck, Erik Van Bockstaele

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituut voor Landbouw-, Visserij- en Voedingsonderzoek, Vlaamse OverheidVlaamse regering
KeywordsBiologyBegoniaGeneticsGenome sizeGenomeChromosomeGenusHybridEvolutionary biologyGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genome sizes of a Begonia collection comprising 37 species and 23 hybrids of African, Asiatic, Middle American, and South American origin were screened using flow cytometry. Within the collection, 1C values varied between 0.23 and 1.46 pg DNA. Genome sizes were, in most cases, not positively correlated with chromosome number, but with pollen size. A 12-fold difference in mean chromosome size was found between the genotypes with the largest and smallest chromosomes. In general, chromosomes from South American genotypes were smaller than chromosomes of African, Asian, or Middle American genotypes, except for B. boliviensis and B. pearcei. Cytological chromosome studies in different genotypes showed variable chromosome numbers, length, width, and total chromosome volume, which confirmed the diversity in genome size. Large secondary constrictions were present in several investigated genotypes. These data show that chromosome number and structure exhibit a great deal of variation within the genus Begonia, and likely help to explain the large number of taxa found within the genus.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207