Bibliographic record
Abstract
N ORMAL LY, Festuca pratensis Huns.has seven pairs of chromo- somes.RANCKEN (1934), in a study of the cytology of some grasses, reported the occurrence of what he called fragment chromosomes in some plants of Festuca pratensis, among other species.These fragment chromosomes seem to behave similarly to the B-chromosomes in maize, Sorghum and Antboxanthum and the standard fragment in rye.The purpose of the present investigation has been to compare the behaviour and effect of these chromosome elements in Festuca praiensis with those found in the materials mentioned above, and others.In this paper, which is the first in a series of publications, I will call these chromosomes accessory chromosomes following the terminology suggested by HAKANSSON (1945) and MONTZING (1945).In a preliminary note (BOSE MARK, 1950) I have presented some of the earlier data on the accessory chromosomes in Festuca pratensis, For a review of the present knowledge on accessory chromosomes in plants, see MONTZING (1949MONTZING ( , 1954) ) and TISCHLER (1953). II. MATERIALS AND METHODS.Festuca pratensis is a typical cross-fertilizer with high variability in minor morphological characters, vitality and fertility, characteristic of such plant's.The material for the present investigation consists mainly of plants collected from wild populations in Sweden or is derived from such plants.The results of the cotlections with respect to frequency and geographical distribution of the accessory chromosomes will he considered in detail in another paper.Some data from the material collected in 1948-49, have been given already in the previous report (BOSEMARK, 1950).For chromosome counts root-tips were fixed in chrome-acetic is the dominating type.Its length is about 1/ 4 of the mean for the normal chromosomes, it has a median centromere and its of the same thickness 16015223, 1954, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".