MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182481003 · doi:10.21273/jashs.129.4.0535

Inbreeding, Coancestry, and Founding Clones of Sweet Cherries from North America

2004· article· en· W2182481003 on OpenAlexaff
Cheol Choi, Frank Kappel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInbreedingBiologyBotanyPrunusWindsorGenetic diversityBreeding programCultivarEcologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inbreeding and coancestry coefficients were calculated for 66 sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) selections released from four breeding programs in North America (HRIO, Vineland, Ont., IAREC, Prosser, Wash., NYSAES, Geneva, N.Y., and PARC, Summerland, B.C.). Highly used founding clones were `Black Heart', `Emperor Francis', `Empress Eugenie', `Napoleon' and `Windsor'. Coefficients of coancestry between all selections and these clones averaged 0.038, 0.045, 0.060, 0.091, and 0.033, respectively. In these five founding clones, coefficients of coancestry in self-compatible selections were over twice as much as those in self-incompatible selections except `Windsor'. In the analysis of coefficients of coancestry between self-incompatible and self-compatible sweet cherry, almost 20% of self-incompatible selections represent more than a half-sib relationship (0.125) to self-compatibles. Increasing and maintaining genetic diversity is needed in sweet cherry breeding program in North America for continued breeding progress.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural ScienceSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207