A STUDY IN HYACINTHUS ON CHROMOSOME SIZE AND BREAKABILITY BY X-RAYS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I' is known that there are big differences between species as regards I their sensitivity towards X-rays and other ionizing radiations.The causes of these differences are to a large extent unknown.There are, however, a few factors whose importance in this connection may be more obvious.One factor of this kind is polyploidy and another factor which seems to be of some importance is chromosome size.Polyploids usually show less phenotypical damage than diploids, when given the same X-ray dose, a fact which certainly is due to each gene locus being repeated several times in the polyploids (M~~NTZING, 1941(M~~NTZING, , 1942;; SMITH, 1946).Any damage induced at a certain locus or chromo- some region will.for this reason, be more efficiently counterbalanced in polyploids than in diploids by the presence of other homologous loci or chromosome regions.Studies 011 the frequency of radiation-induced chromosome structural changes per cell in diploids and in polyploids demonstrate that these changes increase more or less proportionately to the degree of polyploidy (e. g .FR(jIER, GELIN and GUSTAFSSON, 1941; GUSTAFSSON and TEDIN.1942; SMITH.1946; CONGER and JOHNSTON, 1956).This is obviously due to the fact that the chromosome material is about equally sensitive in the diploids and in the polyploids, but with a higher quantity of this material present per cell in the polyploids.hlARsHAK (1937) made some observations suggesting that the frequency of S-ray-induced chromosonie disturbances per cell increases with an increased chromosome size.His study was undertaken on a heterogeneous group of materials, vi:.Lycopersicum esculentum.Ailus
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) | 0.004 | 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".