MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340624666 · doi:10.5376/ijh.2016.06.0002

Molecular Assessment of Genetic Diversity and Identification of Elite Cashew Hybrids

2016· article· en· W2340624666 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. L. Sethi, Swapan K. Tripathy, P. C. Lenka, Priyadarshini Mohanty

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticulture · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGinkgo biloba and Cashew Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHybridGenetic diversityEliteIdentification (biology)BiologyDiversity (politics)Evolutionary biologyGeneticsBiotechnologyBotanySociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic diversity among 20 cashew hybrids and their eight parents were assessed using 15 RAPD primers which resulted 1742 alleles with an average of 62.21 alleles per genotype. RAPD profiles revealed 94 polymorphic bands out of total 107 scorable bands resulting 87.85% polymorphism. On an average 7.66 bands were produced with a range of 4-15 amplicons per primer. The maximum number (14) of polymorphic bands (210 to 3250 bp) was produced by primer OU-34 with high polymorphic information content (PIC) and resolving power (Rp) values. Cashew hybrids H 6 and D 19 maintained very high level of average genetic dissimilarity with rest of the test genotypes. The above hybrids comprising the most divergent genetic group (Cluster-I) had shown significantly above average productivity and these could enrich the cashew gene pool for further genetic improvement for nut quality and yield per se. Besides, the genotype-specific bands identified in the present study are useful for identification of cashew genotypes.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HorticultureSame topicGinkgo biloba and Cashew ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207