MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2392040444

Genetic Diversity of Cynodon dactylon accessions Based on RAMP Markers in Hengduan Mountains from Southwest of China

2008· article· en· W2392040444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiao Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCynodon dactylonGenetic diversityBiologyMicrosatellitePolymorphism (computer science)Veterinary medicineGenetic distanceGenetic similarityChinaGenetic markerBotanyGenetic variationGenotypeGeneticsGeographyGeneAlleleMedicinePopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic diversity of 25 Cynodon dactylon accessions from Hengduan Mountains from southwest of China were analyzed by using RAMP(random amplified microsatellite polymorphism) markers.The results indicated that the polymorphism among the tested accessions was plentiful.A total of 56 bands were amplified based on 10 primer combinations,of which 39 bands were polymorphic,the percentage of polymorphic bands was 69.64.Two to six polymorphic bands could be amplified from each primer combination,with an average of 3.9 bands.The RAMP-based genetic similarity(GS) among 25 bermudagrass accessions ranged from 0.666 7 to 0.947 4,with a mean of 0.812 9.All the accessions could be distinguished by RAMP markers.The cluster analysis resluts showed that 25 accessions were classfied into 4 groups,which were correlated with the geographical distribution of the accessions to some degree.These results suggested that there actually existed plentiful genetic diversity of C.dactylon.RAMP marker was a useful method for analyzing the genetic diversity among C.dactylon accessions.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207