MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153222527 · doi:10.1139/b10-019

Characterization of expressed sequence tag-derived simple sequence repeat markers for 17 <i>Linum</i> species

2010· article· en· W2153222527 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yong‐Bi Fu, Gregory W. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinumBiologyPrimer (cosmetics)BotanyGenetic diversityMicrosatelliteGeneticsAllelePopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One major challenge in genetic and evolutionary studies of wild flax species is the lack of informative molecular markers. A set of 100 informative expressed sequence tag-derived simple sequence repeat (EST-SSR) primer pairs developed in cultivated flax ( Linum usitatissimum L.) were characterized on 35 Linum accessions representing 17 Linum species for their transferability to other Linum species. Ninety-nine primer pairs displayed scorable polymorphisms across 35 Linum samples and generated 627 bands likely from 121 loci. About 50% of the detected bands occurred only in three or fewer samples. A total of 393 bands, likely from 116 loci, were detected by 97 primer pairs in Linum bienne Mill. samples, but only up to 60 bands, likely from up to 39 loci, were revealed by 6 to 37 primer pairs in the samples of the other 15 Linum species. The L. bienne samples displayed 23.7% more EST-SSR variation than the L. usitatissimum samples. These characterized EST-SSR markers should be useful for future genetic diversity and evolutionary studies of Linum species, particularly for the progenitor of cultivated flax.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207