MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE CYTOLOGICAL BEHAVIOUR OF ACCESSORY CHROMOSOMES IN CENTAUREA SCABIOSA

2010· article· en· W2051105615 on OpenAlexaff
SUNE FRÖST

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationBiologyLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N addition to the normal ten pairs of chromosomes in Centaurea I Scabiosa there are certain plants possessing a number of extra chromosome elements ( F R ~s T , 1948).Such extra chromosomes, not homologous with those of the ordinary complement, have been given many different names.In a preliminary note ( F R ~s T , 1948) they were called B chromosomes, but now the term raccessory chromosomes)) has been adopted in the order to have a more uniform name for this type of chromosome.The name ))accessory chromosomes)> was suggested by H~KANSSON (1945) and MUNTZING (1945), and later used by, e. g., BOSE-

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHereditasSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207