MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2376175145

Study on Phenotypic Diversity of Seeds and Cones Characteristics in Pinus tabuleaformis Carr.

2010· article· en· W2376175145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junfeng Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHorticulturePinus <genus>UPGMABotanyPopulationCoefficient of variationAltitude (triangle)Genetic variationMathematicsStatisticsGeometryMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Totally 10 natural population of Pinus tabuleaformis Carr.were collected.Eight characteristics,in cluding seed length(SL),seed width(SW),seed hight (SH)cone length(CL),cone width(CW ),weight(TGW) of 1000 seeds were measured.The variance analysis of the five characteristics showed that there were signifcant differences among populations and among families within a population.The variation among populations,that is the mean phenotypic differentiation coefficient was 51.86% and bigger than that within populations(48.14%).The variation among a population was the main part of the phenotypic variation in Pinus tabuleaformis.In different individuals within populations,the CV of cone length,cone width,cone length/cone width,seed length,seed width,seed hight seed length/seed width,1000 seeds weight was 12.87%,12.43%,11.19%,13.97%,16.92%,18.8%,11.53% and 32.50%,respectively.According to the UPGMA cluster analysis,the 10 populations could be divided into four groups.There was a greatly positive correlation between seed length/seed width and latitude and altitude and EGA.There was a greatly negative correlation between seed length/seed width and annual average temperature and preciptation and growth period.

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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicEnvironmental and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207