Quantitative Model of the Homozygous Effect of Heterogenes in Linkage of the Selfing Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is very significance for improving selective accuracy and predictability on breeding which genotypes of two parents cross combination can be predicted homozygous degree or frequency to two parent genotypes.According to genetic map,the difference of two parents allele,the rule of linkage heredity and the law of the free combination,built the prediction model and the mathematical expectation of homozygous of progeny genotype of cross combination which have three pairs of linkage gene in each homologous chromosome by applying mathematical modeling method.The results show that: homozygous degree or frequency of hybrid progeny genotype can be inherited.Gene homozygous model of a generation of selfing generations is G(t)=sum([g1(tk)+g2(tk)+g3(tk)+g4(tk)]) from k=1 to ∞ t genes homozygous effect of selfing generations which have three pairs of linkage gene in more chromosome is G(t,n)=Πn i=1sum([g1(tk)+g2(tk)+g3(tk)+g4(tk)]) from k=1 to t Based on the model compiled computer program,simulate distribution regularities of homozygous degree of progeny genotype for cross combination by genetic map in wheat.The results were provided theoretical support in genetic breeding.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".