Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long row Degrees of Sums of Mean Degrees of Sums of Alean freedom square square freedom square square Belween series: 81 353:16 4,3600 118 6 4 4 , ~~ 5,4620 \\'ithin )) : 80 6 1 , 0 9 0,7636 87 280,13 3,2193 Total: 161 4 1 4 , ~ 205 924,65For the short rows the u2 value will be 5,710, giving a P smaller than 0,001.For the long row uz will be 1,696 and P intermediate between 0,oi and 0,ooi.Thib P value, however, is very close to 0,001, the u2 exactly corresponding to P = 0,nni being 1,723.The conclusion to be drawn from these calculations is evidently that there are significant plant differences with regard to pollell fertilily.The percentage of good pollen may be rather variable in the same plant but nevcrtlieless the inter-plant variation is stronger than 111 e in t r apla n t variation.The primary material in this case is too large to be tabulated in its entirety, but in order to illustrate the type of variation observed the values from 38 plants of the long row, in which more than one pollen sample per plant was taken, are given in Table 1.Further data on pollen fertility in the same variety, ))StAlr&g\), were gathered in the following summer, 1938.Pollen samples were taken from two different standard plots ~10-51)) and ))3-59)) in a field with inbred rye.Of ) , 10-51 )) 35 plants were examined, of ))3-59.84 plants.From each plant two pollen samples, a and b, were taken from different heads.The percentage of good pollen was found to vary as follows: Percentage of good pollell 5 0 -6 0 -70 -ti0 -90 -100 n -X >10-51)), . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".