Pedigrees and genetic base of flax cultivars registered in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flax is an important oilseed crop with industrial, animal, and human nutrition uses. Breeding programs for linseed and fibre flax were initiated in Canada in the early 1900s. A total of 82 flax cultivars have been registered in Canada since 1910, including 24 cultivars introduced from foreign countries and 58 cultivars developed by Canadian breeders. This study collated pedigree data of Canadian flax cultivars and quantified their genetic base via pedigree analysis and coefficient of parentage (CP). A fairly high mean CP of 0.14 was observed between all registered cultivars; this value was even higher (0.23) when only the 46 cultivars released from 1981–2015 were considered. The registered cultivars traced back to 46 ancestors; 72% originated from foreign countries and contributed 83% of the genetic base of all cultivars, illustrating the dominant role played by foreign germplasm in the genetic improvement of Canadian flax. The top 11 ancestors contributed 70%–93% of the genetic base of modern flax cultivars released in the last three decades and formed the core gene pool of Canadian flax cultivars. The genetic base of Canadian cultivars is relatively narrow, although it has gradually expanded, especially in the last two decades. Broadening the genetic base through the introduction of new exotic germplasm is needed to invigorate the gene pool of Canadian flax breeding programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".