Bibliographic record
Abstract
EVERAL types of fragment chroiiio~onies have been found in a ma-S terial of barley grown at our institute for cytogenetical research purposes.A triploid plant fotind in 1956 w a ' ~ selfed.I n its progeny a number of plants were found having different chroniosonie numbers.Plants with 14 to 27 chromosomes appeared.In 1958 it was found that two of the 15-clironiosome plants had each produced one plant having 14 normal chromosomes plus one centric fragment.These two fragments were denoted fr, and fr,.In the progeny of anolher trisoniic p1:int a third type of fragment was found in 1959.This was named f r , (ISING, 1961).When selfing these plants with extra fragments, individuals 1i:iving two fragments of the same type were found.In the present study fragments of the types fr, and fr, were investigated. J. THE TRANSMISSION OF THE FRAGMENTSCrosses were undertaken between normal plants and such having 1 or 2 extra fragments.The results are given in Table 1.As seen from the table there is a certain degree of elimination of fragmenls from one generation to the nest.However, when comparing the transmission of the fragments with that of supernumerary chromosomes of the normal set, one must conclude that the elimination is surprisingly low.In two cross combinations gametes having two extra fragments had functioned.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".