MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104027400 · doi:10.1139/x10-100

Natural triploids of wild cherry

2010· article· en· W2104027400 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurana Serres-Giardi, Jean Dufour, Karen Russell, Corinne Buret, F. Laurens, Frédérique Santi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMicrosatellitePrunusAlleleHorticultureBotanyPloidyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research of triploid individuals was carried out in the French wild cherry ( Prunus avium L.) collection at the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Orléans, France, using 12 microsatellite markers and the S gametophytic incompatibility marker. For 11 of 312 clones (3.5%), we found three different alleles or two different alleles included one doubled allele for 10–12 markers spread along five of the eight chromosome pairs in wild cherry. The cytometry analysis confirmed that triploidy was genome-wide. No new allele was observed among the triploids compared with the diploids of the wild cherry collection: these triploids probably result from diploids through the production of unreduced gametes, and not from interspecific hybridation. A comparison of the height growth, diameter growth, and resistance to leaf spot among 38–85 clones in four 6- to 10-year-old clonal field trials showed that six triploids were among the best compared with the diploids. The dimensions of the leaves were somewhat larger, and the petals were always larger for nine triploids compared with 20 diploids observed on plants of the wild cherry collection of INRA. Three triploids are already used as clonal variety or component of a seed orchard. We discuss the need to include more triploids in the wild cherry breeding programme.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207