MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159519375 · doi:10.1139/b11-047

Wood traits in parental and hybrid species of<i>Sorbus</i>

2011· article· en· W2159519375 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaroslav Ďurkovič, Monika Kardošová, František Kačík, Miroslava Masaryková

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
KeywordsBiologyTaxonBotanyApomixisHybridPloidyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Sorbus is an example of taxonomic complexity arising from the combined effects of hybridization, polyploidy, and apomixis. In this study, a comparison of the diagnostic microscopic characteristics of wood, together with the quantitative traits of vascular anatomy, fiber morphology, and cell wall constituents in parental ( Sorbus aria , Sorbus aucuparia , Sorbus chamaemespilus ) and hybrid ( Sorbus haljamovae , Sorbus montisalpae , Sorbus zuzanae ) taxa, was undertaken to discriminate each one of the examined taxa from the other and also to examine relatedness among parental and hybrid taxa. Chemical profiles of the degree of polymerization of cellulose were found to be the discriminating chemotaxonomic marker for all taxa. Sorbus haljamovae was determined to be the only taxon distinctively identified microscopically and distinguishable from the other examined taxa. The use of cell wall constituent traits provided a better segregation of hybrid taxa from their putative parental species than did the application of vascular anatomy variables. Sorbus zuzanae and Sorbus haljamovae formed isolated clusters that were distinctively segregated from all the other examined taxa. The results of this study indicate that the majority of wood traits in Sorbus hybrids do not exhibit an intermediate position between the parental taxa.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207