Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcrossing, wind-pollinated members of the Pinaceae have high self-pollination rates yet produce few selfed seedlings. How are selfs selectively eliminated? Barriers to selfing have long been considered to be (i) avoidance of self-pollen capture, (ii) competition via simple polyembryony, and (iii) lower viability of selfed embryos. Here, reviews — and some revisions — are offered in addition to future research needs. First, avoiding self-pollen capture is largely ineffectual. Second, simple polyembrony is also a weak or nonexistent barrier against selfed embryos. Third, selfed embryos die at all stages, but a stage-specific death peak occurs during early embryogeny in some taxa and this death peak, if prevalent across a wider range of taxa, deserves a closer look. The death peak does not preclude the prevailing genetic model for embryo viability loci, but could indicate that other genetic mechanisms are operative. Molecular dissection shows that zygotic lethals are distributed across different chromosomal segments. To date, these are mostly semi-lethal rather than lethal, and they range from partially dominant to overdominant. A literature survey suggests that only 5 of the 10 genera within the Pinaceae ( Abies , Larix , Picea , Pinus , and Pseudotsuga ) have been well characterized with respect to selfing. Extreme inbreeding depression during embryo development may not be a shared feature among conifers as a group. A critical research question is whether dual death patterns are present in other genera, and if they are, alternative genetic models to account for the death peak. Addressing these questions has broad relevance to conservation, domestication, and management of closed populations, not just conifers or gymnosperms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".