MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Growth disorders and phenotype variability in phytotron-cultivated barley

2009· article· en· W2050878259 on OpenAlexaff
Ingegerd Dormling, Åke Gustafsson, Gunnar Ekman

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
FundersVetenskapsrådetKnut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
KeywordsBiologyPlant stemShootPhytotronBotanyphotoperiodismMain stemVegetative reproductionHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In continuation of previous studies, four barley varieties were included in an experiment to test the influence of photo- and thermoperiod on plant development and phenotypic variability. Using the short photoperiod of 12 hours, anomalies of development were especially frequent in Ingrid and Kristina barley and the line 8004-37 of Rupal barley. Photoperiods of 24 and 16 hours gave but few major disturbances. All varieties had a higher number of nodes and internodes in short-day than in long-day cultivation. The growth disorders appeared in the upper part of the stem at the transition zone of the vegetative and generative system. False flag-leaves were common. Basal rachis internodes frequently became greatly elongated. Secondary shoots were formed from the last stem node, from ordinary and extra collars as well as rachis nodes, including also the origin of secondary spikes. The disorders were less severe in Bonus and Rupal barley 8004-1. The anomalies implied the end stage of a gradually increasing level of variability with an ultimate developmental disorganization, generally not found at optimal conditions but common in short photoperiods. “Phenetics”, a concept applied by Mayr, illustrates and explains the dynamic pattern of genotype reactions to changing environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditasSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207