MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2370875033

RAPD Primers Screening Suitable for Genetic Diversity Analysis in Lilium

2014· article· en· W2370875033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chen Ming-hon

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEcology and Conservation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRAPDPrimer (cosmetics)BiologyGenetic diversityLiliumGeneticsPolymorphism (computer science)BotanyGenotypeGenePopulationChemistryMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim was to provide effective primers suitable for genetic diversity analysis in Lilium with RAPD markers. 48 RAPD primers were used in the RAPD-PCR amplification for Manissa,Siberia,L. davidii var. unicolor and L. davidii,and 8 effective primers with characteristics of rich polymorphism,clear bands and good repeatability were screened. 112 DNA bands were obtained,of which 78 bands were polymorphic,accounting for 69. 6% of the total amplified bands. And 14 bands could be amplified with a primer,averagely. The research results will lay the foundation for the study on genetic diversity analysis,cultivar identification of Lilium at the molecular level.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicEcology and Conservation StudiesFrench-language works237,207