MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070894488 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12005

Analysis of the <scp>NMI</scp>01 Marker for a Population Database of <scp><i>Cannabis</i></scp> Seeds

2012· article· en· W2070894488 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Shirley, Lindsay Allgeier, Tommy LaNier, Heather Miller Coyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMiller Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabis sativaDatabaseLocus (genetics)PopulationMicrosatelliteBiologyGenotypeCannabisAlleleReference databaseGeneticsBiotechnologyHorticultureMedicineGeneComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have analyzed the distribution of genotypes at a single hexanucleotide short tandem repeat (STR) locus in a Cannabis sativa seed database along with seed-packaging information. This STR locus is defined by the polymerase chain reaction amplification primers CS1F and CS1R and is referred to as NMI01 (for National Marijuana Initiative) in our study. The population database consists of seed seizures of two categories: seed samples from labeled and unlabeled packages regarding seed bank source. Of a population database of 93 processed seeds including 12 labeled Cannabis varieties, the observed genotypes generated from single seeds exhibited between one and three peaks (potentially six alleles if in homozygous state). The total number of observed genotypes was 54 making this marker highly specific and highly individualizing even among seeds of common lineage. Cluster analysis associated many but not all of the handwritten labeled seed varieties tested to date as well as the National Park seizure to our known reference database containing Mr. Nice Seedbank and Sensi Seeds commercially packaged reference samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207