MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074866368 · doi:10.1111/pbr.12098

Gene flow from transgenic oilseed <i><scp>B</scp>rassica juncea</i> (L.) <scp>C</scp>zern. into weedy <i><scp>S</scp>inapis arvensis</i> L. (wild mustard)

2013· article· en· W2074866368 on OpenAlexafffund
Suzanne I. Warwick, Sara L. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsBiologyIntrogressionBrassicaHybridGene flowCanolaBotanyPollenAcetolactate synthaseGeneGeneticsGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gene flow from acetolactate synthase‐resistant ( HR ) B rassica juncea oilseed canola to related weed, S inapis arvensis (density 1 plant/m 2 ) was assessed in a 100 m 2 field plot of HR B . juncea . Two HR F 1 hybrids (H1 and H2) were detected among 109 951 seedlings screened with imazethapyr (hybridization frequency – 1.8 × 10 −5 ). Hybridity was confirmed using flow cytometry, B . juncea ‐specific amplified fragment length polymorphisms ( AFLP s) markers, genomic in situ hybridization ( GISH ) and PCR ‐based detection of B . juncea's HR gene. H1 and H2 had 2n = 27 and 2n = 45 chromosomes, corresponding 3x (Sr AB ) and 5x (Sr AABB ) genomic structures and reduced male fertility, 3.2 and 16.6% pollen viability, respectively. H1 was self‐incompatible, whereas H 2 set seed when selfed ( B . juncea trait). Selfed F 2 , F 3 and F 4 plants showed HR trait persistence and vigorous growth and high (80–100%) pollen fertility in 22% and 39% of the F 2 and F 3 plants, respectively. No progeny were obtained from F 1, F 2 or F 3 hybrids × S . arvensis backcrosses, suggesting the likelihood of introgression of traits is low to negligible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207