Bibliographic record
Abstract
IFFERENCES in fertility between autotetraploids have been as-D cribed to variations in chromosome behaviour (DARLINGTON, 1937 ; GILLES and RANDOLPH, 1951; HILPERT, 1957) at meiosis or, where no cytological dissimilarities were discernible, to genetic differences (MOR-RISON and RAJHATHY, 1960 a and 1960 b) .An opportunity was afforded to obtain further inforniation on the reason for such differences in fertility, when three sorghum autotetraploids related by mutation were found to differ markedly in this respect.Accordingly cytological examinations were made of the behaviour of chromosomes at meiosis in these autotetraploids. Materials and MethodsAutotetraploids of a grain sorghum variety, Experimental 3; a colchicine-induced mutant, M 15 derived in the diploid form from Experimental 3 and then doubled; and a n F, hybrid between them obtained in the diploid form and afterwards doubled, were obtained by colchicine treatment.M 15 is a forage type which arose in the true-breeding diploid condition immediately after colchicine treatment.Detailed descriptions of the origin, and cytological and genetic behaviour of these in the diploid form have been described previously (FRANZKE and ROSS, 1952;Ross et al., 1954; HARPSTEAD et d., 1954; FOSTER et d., 1961 a and 1961 b ; Ross et d., 1961).Inflorescences were fixed in 3 ethyl alcohol: 1 glacial acetic acid.Squashes of pollen mother cells were examined after staining with propionic carmine.Fertility estimates under self pollination were obtained by recording the number of seeds set in approximately 200 florets.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".