Production of New Cotton Interspecific Hybrids with Enhanced Fiber Fineness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>To improve cotton fiber fineness, the (<em>Gossypium hirsutum</em> L. × <em>Gossypium longicalyx </em>Hutch. &amp; Lee)² allohexaploid and the [(<em>Gossypium hirsutum</em> L. × <em>Gossypium thurberi </em>Tod.)² × <em>G. longicalyx</em>] allotetraploid were backcrossed to <em>G. hirsutum</em> to produce introgressed genetic stocks. The ribbon width (RW) of 600 swelled fibers produced by the hybrids, their parents, and their backcross progeny were analyzed for each compared genotype using an optical microscope. The RWs varied between 6.41±2.15 µm for <em>G. longicalyx</em> to 17.45±2.98 µm for the <em>G. hirsutum</em> parent cultivar C2. Fibers produced by the trispecific hybrids and their progeny were finer than the bispecific hybrid material. For the introgressed stocks, the lowest RWs were observed for the trispecific hybrid (10.79±2.14 µm) and certain backcross progenies (between 11.98±1.27 µm to 12.71±1.61 µm). The allohexaploid RW was 13.58±1.41 µm. One of its tetraploid progeny produced approximately the same value (13.94±2.48 µm). These results show that <em>G. longicalyx </em>is a potential genetic stock for cotton fiber fineness improvement. The genetic stocks produced are valuable materials for improve the fineness of cotton fiber.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it