MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062136338 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.411189x

Determining Genetic Similarities and Relationships among Cowpea Breeding Lines and Cultivars by Microsatellite Markers

2001· article· en· W2062136338 on OpenAlexafffund
Chengdao Li, Christian Fatokun, Benjamin Ewa Ubi, Bir Bahadur Singh, G. J. Scoles

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian International Development Agency
KeywordsBiologyVignaMicrosatelliteCultivarDendrogramCropGenetic markerGenetic diversityTropical agricultureLegumeLocus (genetics)AlleleAgronomyBiotechnologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] is an important grain legume crop grown for its protein rich grains. It is an inexpensive source of protein in the diets of people in sub‐Saharan Africa. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) has been working on the improvement of cowpea for more than 30 yr. Over 60 countries receive cowpea cultivars improved by IITA for testing and adoption where needed. Many of these cultivars have identical parentage but look very different morphologically when grown in the field. Forty‐six microsatellite DNA markers were used to evaluate genetic similarities among 90 cowpea breeding lines developed at IITA. Twenty‐seven primer pairs could amplify polymorphic single‐locus microsatellites from all of these materials. Two to seven alleles per primer were detected with a polymorphic information content varying from 0.02 to 0.73. By means of only five polymorphic microsatellite primers, 88 of the 90 cowpea lines could be distinguished. A dendrogram based on the microsatellite polymorphisms generally agreed with the pedigree of the cowpea lines.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations214
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207