Some formulas concerned with pollen contamination have constrained use in Lindgren and Mullin (1998). Relatedness and status number in seed orchard crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent paper by Lindgren and Mullin (1998) investigated relatedness and status effective number of seed orchard crops, collected under a variety of circumstances. We have determined that there is an error in the paper. An attempt was made in eqs. 8 and 9 to derive average relatedness of the gene pool of the seed crop when the orchard is exposed to pollen contamination. Average relatedness is the probability that two genes from the seed crop are identical by descent. It was assumed (p. 279) that the male fertilities sum to 0.5 (the other half of the genes coming from the seed parents) for the term corresponding to the case when both genes considered originate from the seed orchard. This is not correct, and this also affects some developments based on these formulas. Relatedness, when the compared genes both originate from the seed orchard, can occur because both the genes share the same seed parent or because they share the same pollen parent. It will (usually) be more common that they share seed parent than that they share pollen parent following pollen contamination, and thus the female fertilities will receive more weight and the male less weight. If an additional assumption is made, being that the fertility on the male side is directly proportional to that on the female side, the formulas and conclusions will be correct. The relative share of contributions among the clones will then be independent of the contamination. In many cases, this assumption is a realistic approximation. Even when this assumption is not fulfilled, many of the conclusions may be correct or approximately correct.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".