MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040821054 · doi:10.1139/g06-145

‘Cardinal’ grape parentage: a case of a breeding mistake

2007· article· en· W2040821054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Akkak, Paolo Boccacci, Roberto Botta

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, DavisCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsTable grapeBiologyCultivarMistakeLocus (genetics)Vitis viniferaMicrosatelliteSynonym (taxonomy)BotanyHorticultureGeneticsLawGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) is one of the most widely grown fruit plants, with table grapes accounting for at least 20% of the total world production. A few traditional table grape cultivars have achieved great international prominence. Among the most important cultivars is 'Cardinal', a historical Californian grapevine obtained by E. Snyder and F. Harmon in 1939 by crossing 'Flame Tokay' (syn. 'Ahmer Bou Amer') with 'Ribier' (syn. 'Alphonse Lavallée') at the Horticultural Field Station of Fresno, Calif.. In the course of DNA typing grapevine varieties collected in Algeria and other Mediterranean countries, we found, surprisingly, that 'Cardinal'could not result from this cross. Here, we present molecular genetic evidence that 'Cardinal' has no parentage relationship with 'Flame Tokay'. We also show, for the first time, that 'Flame Tokay' is a mutant version, at the VVS5 microsatellite locus, of the table grape 'Ahmer Bou Amer', which is considered its synonym.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207