MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405848474 · doi:10.1080/01140671.2016.1150308

Assessing the genetic diversity in onion ( <i>Allium cepa</i> L.) landraces from northwest Spain and comparison with the European variability

2016· article· en· W2405848474 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Antonio Rivera, Alba García-Ulloa, Federico Pomar, Cristina Silvar

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGarlic and Onion Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundLeibniz-Institut für Pflanzengenetik und KulturpflanzenforschungXunta de GaliciaInstitute of GeneticsUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsBiologyAlliumFixation indexMicrosatelliteGenetic diversityLocus (genetics)AlleleGenetic variabilityInbreedingBotanyHorticultureGenotypeGeneticsPopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Fifteen onion landraces from Galicia (northwest Spain) were characterised with a set of 25 microsatellite markers and the genetic variability harboured by this collection was compared with the surrounding diversity by comparison with a representative panel of European onion landraces. Twenty markers were polymorphic allowing the detection of 121 alleles. Ninety‐one of these were identified in the Galician group (average of 4.6 distinct alleles per locus) and 9% of the total number of alleles were recorded as unique alleles specifically contributed by onion landraces from northwest Spain. High values of observed and expected heterozygosities were detected for the majority of loci. Wright’s fixation index confirmed an excess of heterozygotes and a low level of inbreeding, suggesting that high levels of heterogeneity have accumulated within landraces. Multivariate and STRUCTURE analyses revealed that Galician onions possessed a specific genomic composition different from that found in European landraces.

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)0.001
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural ScienceSame topicGarlic and Onion StudiesFrench-language works237,207