Random amplified polymorphic DNA variation within and among meadow bromegrass progeny types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ten meadow bromegrass genotypes tested as half‐sib (polycross, PX; open‐pollinated, OP) and selfed (S 1 ) progenies were surveyed using random amplified polymorphic DNA. Fourteen primers, which produced 32 markers, were selected to determine the genotypes of 360 individuals from the three progeny tests. Analysis of molecular variance was performed in each progeny test, and genetic distances between genotypes and progeny types were determined. Among genotype genetic variation in half‐sib (PX and OP) progenies was similar. Genetic variation among genotypes for S 1 progenies (30.5%) was about twice that found in the half‐sib progenies. Variation between individual S 1 progenies ranged from 15.7% to 50.1%, while in the half‐sib progenies, the range was 6.9‐24.1%. Based on average distances between progeny types for a given genotype, OP and PX were closer to each other than to the S 1 . An analysis of variance of the molecular marker frequency occurrence was performed for 12 plants within each progeny type of each genotype. Marker frequencies, expressed in percentages, ranged from 10.7% to 84.3%. No significant differences were found for genotype and progeny type‐genotype interaction suggesting that all genotypes behave in a similar manner across the different progeny types.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".