Tibet as a Potential Domestication Center of Cultivated Barley of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of wild barley from Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in the origin and domestication of cultivated barley has long been underestimated. Population-based phylogenetic analyses were performed to study the origin and genetic diversity of Chinese domesticated barley, and address the possibility that the Tibetan region in China was an independent center of barley domestication. Wild barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. spontaneum) populations from Southwest Asia, Central Asia, and Tibet along with domesticated barley from China were analyzed using two nuclear genes. Our results showed that Tibetan wild barley distinctly diverged from Southwest Asian (Near East) wild barley, that Central Asian wild barley is related to Southwest Asian wild barley, and that Chinese domesticated barley shares the same haplotypes with Tibetan wild barley. Phylogenetic analysis showed a close relationship between Chinese domesticated barley and the Tibetan wild barley, suggesting that Tibetan wild barley was the ancestor of Chinese domesticated barley. Our results favor the polyphyletic origin for cultivated barley.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".