MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A SQUASH TECHNIQUE FOR CHROMOSOME MORPHOLOGICAL STUDIES

2009· article· en· W2053199468 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLibrary scienceGeneticsHumanitiesPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ANY different methods of making squash preparations for chro-M mosome studies have been described. These involve the application of various chemical and physical agents for the pretreatment and fixation of the dividing cells. A good technique should permit the chromosomes to become well spread during the squashing, and, at the same time, the fixation should bring out the details of chromosome morphology as distinctly as possible. Well spread chromosomes with a clear morphology are essential for karyotype studies and chromosome measurements. It is much more difficult to make good preparations from some species than from others. The grasses do not belong to the easiest materials in this respect. The root tips are hard and difficult to squash due to the failure of the cells to separate readily from one another, even after prolonged hydrolysis in normal HCI, or repeated heating in the acetic stains (PIENAAR, 1955).

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.206 · 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