MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of self‐incompatible<i>Brassica napus:</i>(I) introgression of S‐alleles from<i>Brassica oleracea</i>through interspecific hybridization

2003· article· en· W2065464773 on OpenAlexaff
V. L. Ripley, W. D. Beversdorf

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIntrogressionEmbryo rescueBrassica oleraceaBackcrossingHybridOvuleBrassicaPollinationBotanyInterspecific competitionHand-pollinationPloidyHeterosisInterspecific hybridizationGeneticsPollenGenePollinator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cultivars inBrassica napusvar.oleifera, a self‐pollinating, self‐compatible species, have traditionally been developed as open‐pollinated lines or populations. Significant yield gains in this species have been realized through the exploitation of heterosis. Commercial hybrid production has been possible as a result of the development of a number of pollination control systems. Self‐incompatibility was transferred fromB. oleraceavar.italicatoB. napusvar.oleiferathrough interspecific hybridization. The response to interspecific pollination, as measured by pod elongation and initial stages of ovule development, was genotype dependent, and two highly responsiveB. napusgenotypes were identified. Embryo rescue was used to produce the interspecific hybrids. Isoelectric focusing of stigma proteins was used to identify S‐alleles in the interspecific hybrids to facilitate backcrossing. Segregation of the S‐locus through a series of back‐crosses toB. napuswas complicated by aneuploidy; however, the S‐locus was found to segregate as a single gene. Usefulness ofB. oleraceaas a source of S‐alleles for pollination control inB. napusis discussed.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207