MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121035795 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.42.3.478

Molecular Identification of Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) Cultivars Using Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism

2007· article· en· W2121035795 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐José Côté, Lisa Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBerberisCultivarAmplified fragment length polymorphismBiologyShrubBotanyOrnamental plantGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants of the genus Berberis have been forbidden entry in Canada because common barberry ( Berberis vulgaris ) is an alternate host for black stem rust of wheat. Japanese barberry ( Berberis thunbergii ), an ornamental shrub appreciated for its hardiness and attractiveness, is generally considered immune to rust. Therefore, the Canadian government has established a program allowing importation of 11 approved Japanese barberry cultivars. The success of the program relies on the proper identification of the approved varieties, which may not always be possible when the plant is dormant or missing some essential morphologic criteria. Therefore, a cultivar verification method has been established using the amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) genotyping technique. The method was validated using DNA extracted from 41 plants sampled across the country and representing 23 Japanese barberry cultivars and representative of the 11 approved cultivars. The method successfully differentiated and confirmed the identity of all approved cultivars. Furthermore, the method was able to detect and identify two of six samples submitted for cultivar verification as mislabeled by the exporter because the AFLP patterns generated did not correspond to their reference cultivar patterns.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207