MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020012661 · doi:10.4141/cjps09062

Early generation performance of Fragaria species hybrids in crosses with cultivated strawberry

2009· article· en· W2020012661 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rebecca Harbut, J. Alan Sullivan, John Proctor, Harry J. Swartz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarHybridFragariaBiologyGermplasmHorticultureYield (engineering)HeterosisAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yield (i.e., fruit number and size) and yield component measurements were collected and destructive growth analysis carried out on lower-ploidy Fragaria species, synthetic octoploids (SO), F 1 (SO × cultivar), OC 1 (F 1 × cultivar) hybrids and cultivars. Plants were grown in two field trials, at the Elora Research Station, Ontario, and at the Wye Research and Education Centre, Queenstown, Maryland, and in one greenhouse trial in Guelph, Ontario. Total plant dry weight (PDW) was highly variable for the species, but the higher vegetative vigour of the SOs compared with mid-parent values suggested a heterotic effect. The shade adapted species (e.g., F. moschata Duch. and F. nubicola) had greater PDWs than the sun adapted species. Yields of the species, SOs and F 1 hybrids were low; however, flower number was higher compared with cultivars. The first outcross with F 1 s and cultivars resulted in a sixfold increase in yield attributed to both increased fruit size and fruit number. Three of the four OC 1 hybrids had yields that were comparable with cultivars. Through breeding and intensive selection, genotypes introgressed with SO germplasm can be restored to the pre-cultivar yield levels with only a few outcrosses to the cultivated strawberry.Key words: Growth analysis, heterosis, interspecific hybridization, strawberry, yield, synthetic octoploid

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 score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207