MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Populus</i>: A Model System for Plant Biology

2007· review· en· W2135372971 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Jansson, Carl J. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Plant Biology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulus trichocarpaBiologyArabidopsisGenomicsPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyFunctional genomicsGenomeTree breedingArabidopsis thalianaGeneWoody plantEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the completion of the Populus trichocarpa genome sequence and the development of various genetic, genomic, and biochemical tools, Populus now offers many possibilities to study questions that cannot be as easily addressed in Arabidopsis and rice, the two prime model systems of plant biology and genomics. Tree-specific traits such as wood formation, long-term perennial growth, and seasonality are obvious areas of research, but research in other areas such as control of flowering, biotic interactions, and evolution of adaptive traits is enriched by adding a tree to the suite of model systems. Furthermore, the reproductive biology of Populus (a dioeceous wind-pollinated long-lived tree) offers both new possibilities and challenges in the study and analysis of natural genetic and phenotypic variation. The relatively close phylogenetic relationship of Populus to Arabidopsis in the Eurosid clade of Eudicotyledonous plants aids in comparative functional studies and comparative genomics, and has the potential to greatly facilitate studies on genome and gene family evolution in eudicots.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations635
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Plant BiologySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207