Bibliographic record
Abstract
I N breeding work with autotetraploid rye (ct. MUNTZING, 1951) selec- tion has been carried out within several different strains and also in crossing groups involving two or more strains. After intererossing evidence of hybrid vigour and increased fertility was ohtained several years ago. In order to obtain accurate data on this point artificial crosses between tetraploid strains of three different rye varieties, Steel, Petkus and King, were undertaken in 1951. The crosses were made in the three combinations possible (Steel X Petkus, Steel X King and Petkus X King; in the present paper the names Steel, Petkus and King always refer to tetraploid strains of these varieties), and in each cross in hoth reciprocal directions. The number of kernels obtained was sufficiently large to enable the establishment of isolation groups as well as a small field trial, in which parents and hybrids were compared. In this trial the seeds were sown in the holes of marker boards with one seed per hole, 5 em, between the holes and 30 holes per row. In each cross there were 3 replications, each replication being represented by the parent strains (4 rows of each) and between them the two reciprocal hybrid combinations (2 rows of each). Thus, in each replication there was a total of 4 F, rows surrounded by 4 rows of each parent strain. To prevent border effects the whole trial was surrounded hy tetraploid winter rye plants sown in spring and therefore not shooting. Germlnation and sprouting in the autumn were quite satisfactory and also the wintering and further development during the summer of 1952. 266 ARNE MUNTZING
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".