MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phytotron ecology of mutant genes

2009· article· en· W2315220428 on OpenAlexaff
Åke Gustafsson, Ingegerd Dormling, Gunnar Ekman

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaInstitute of Genetics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeterosisBiologyMutantBotanyHybridHorticultureGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study deals with the intralocus mutant hybrid ert-o16 X mat-a8 (erectoides 16 X Mari). Eleven traits of generative, somigenerative and vegetative character were examined with regard to genotype performance in varied photo- and thermoperiods. A system of six photo-periods with a constant thermoperiod of 15–10°C was worked out. In addition, at the photo-periods of 16 and 12 hours also the thermoperiods of 20–15° and 20–10°C were applied. The mutants and their F1 hybrid were found to be highly fertile under all tested conditions, with a certain decrease of fertility in erectoides 16 at high temperature and 8 hours light. This high fertility contrasts with the behaviour of the parental varieties and the mutant-variety crosses under suboptimal conditions. Heterosis occurred in all photoperiods except 24 hours, especially in the generative traits of dry weight of ripe spikes and kernel number. Generative efficiency, i.e. the ratio of generative to vegetative production, was found generally to be conspicuous in the mutants and their intralocus hybrid, but low at high temperatures and short photoperiods in the case of mutant-variety crosses and original varieties. In agreement with previous studies heterosis is divided into three types: (1) the somatic (or vegetative) type, (2) the reproductive (or generative) type and (3) the adaptive (or competitive) type. Examples are presented of all three types of heterosis.

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 score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
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 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditasSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207