MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147834964 · doi:10.1139/g00-115

A restriction fragment length polymorphism based linkage map of a diploid<i>Avena</i>recombinant inbred line population

2001· article· en· W2147834964 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C A Kremer, M Lee, Jill Holland

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsGenetic linkageLocus (genetics)Restriction fragment length polymorphismGene mappingPopulationPloidyGenomeQuantitative trait locusChromosomeGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A population of 100 F6-derived recombinant inbred lines was developed from the cross of two diploid (2n = 14) Avena accessions, CI3815 (A. strigosa) and C11994 (A. wiestii). Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) probes previously mapped in other grass species were used to develop a framework linkage map suitable for comparative genetics. Nine linkage groups were identified among the 181 loci mapped, with an average interlocus distance of 5 cM, and a total genetic map length of 880 cM. A cluster of five tightly linked crown rust resistance genes (Pca) was localized on the map, as were five loci identified by disease resistance gene analogs from maize, sorghum, and wheat. None of the five loci identified by the gene analogs were linked to the Pca locus. The linkage map was compared with previously published diploid and hexaploid linkage maps in an attempt to identify homologous or homoeologous chromosomes between populations. Locus orders and linkage relationships were poorly conserved between the A. strigosa x A. wiestii map and other Avena maps. In spite of mapping complications due to duplications within a basic genome a well as the allopolyploid constitution of many Avena species, such map comparisons within Avena provide further evi dence of substantial chromosomal rearrangement between species within Avena.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations38
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207