MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113459779 · doi:10.4238/vol9-3gmr862

Genetic diversity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm in Pakistan as revealed by RAPD analysis

2010· article· en· W2113459779 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Faraz S. Ahmad, Azeem Iqbal Khan, Faisal Saeed Awan, Bushra Sadia, Hafeez Ahmad Sadaqat, Saraj Bahadur

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics and Molecular Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta Agricultural Research Institute
KeywordsRAPDGermplasmGenetic diversityBiologyPrimer (cosmetics)GenotypeCultivarHorticultureBiotechnologyVeterinary medicineGeneticsGeneChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic diversity analysis of chickpea germplasm can provide practical information for the selection of parental material and thus assist in planning breeding strategies. Chickpea seed is a good source of carbohydrates and proteins, constituting 80% of the total dry seed weight. Released cultivars and advanced lines of 30 chickpea genotypes were subjected to RAPD analysis for assessment of genetic diversity. We used 16 RAPD primers. Amplification of genomic DNA of the 30 genotypes yielded 62 fragments that could be scored. The number of amplification products produced per primer varied from two to four, with a mean of three bands. The total number of bands amplified by 16 anchored primers varied from 16 to 34. The primer GLK-15 produced the largest number (N = 4) of fragments, whereas primers GLK-19 and GLD-19 produced the smallest number (N = 1) of fragments. The single band produced by the GTGTGCCCCA primer in the PB-2000 and 07005 genotypes may be attributed to temperature tolerance phenotypes.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics and Molecular ResearchSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207