MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069074162 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n12p253

Genetic Evaluation and Physico-chemical Properties of Chilies (Capsicum annuum L.)

2012· article· en· W2069074162 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarujpisit Payakhapaab, Danai Boonyakiat, Maneechat Nikornpun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Practices and Plant Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGraduate School, Chiang Mai UniversityKasetsart UniversityChiang Mai University
KeywordsSoftware maintainerHybridSterilityPollenBiologyHorticultureCultivarGenotypeBotanyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cytoplasmic male sterility of chilli cultivars was evaluated for their prospective genotypes. Fifteen pairs of F1 hybrids were evaluated for their male pollen viabilities in three natures. Hybrids which showed no pollen occurred in 9 varieties whose male parents should have the prospective genotypes of N rfrf or B line. Hybrids with fertile pollens in some plants and sterile ones on others appeared in 4 varieties whose male parents should have prospective genotypes of N/S Rfrf. Hybrids showing fertile pollens were found in 2 varieties whose male parents should have the male sterility controlling genes in the nucleus as N/S RfRf or C line. Horticultural characteristics of six accessions of chilies were recorded. Chilli fruits of the accessions were analyzed for the physico-chemical properties in terms of moisture content, total soluble solids, vitamin C, capsaicin content and skin color. Accessions CA1445, CA1449 and CA1450 were found to have suitable characteristics as maintainer 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)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural Practices and Plant GeneticsFrench-language works237,207