MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591635628 · doi:10.1038/srep43595

Selection for Oil Content During Soybean Domestication Revealed by X-Ray Tomography of Ancient Beans

2017· article· en· W2591635628 on OpenAlexaff
Yunbing Zong, Shengkun Yao, Gary W. Crawford, Hui Fang, Jianfeng Lang, Jiadong Fan, Zhibin Sun, Yang Liu, Jianhua Zhang, Xiulan Duan, Guangzhao Zhou, Tiqiao Xiao, Fengshi Luan, Qīng Wáng, Xuexiang Chen, Huaidong Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Social Science Fund of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaShandong University
KeywordsDomesticationSoybean oilBiologyCultivarTraitContent (measure theory)AgronomyBotanyFood scienceHorticultureMathematicsEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When and under what circumstances domestication related traits evolved in soybean (Glycine max) is not well understood. Seed size has been a focus of archaeological attention because increased soybean seed weight/size is a trait that distinguishes most modern soybeans from their ancestors; however, archaeological seed size analysis has had limited success. Modern domesticated soybean has a significantly higher oil content than its wild counterpart so oil content is potentially a source of new insight into soybean domestication. We investigated soybean oil content using X-ray computed tomography (CT; specifically, synchrotron radiation X-ray CT or SRX-CT) of charred, archaeological soybean seeds. CT identified holes in the specimens that are associated with oil content. A high oil content facilitates the development of small holes, whereas a high protein content results in larger holes. The volume of small holes increased slowly from 7,500 to 4,000 cal B.P. We infer that human selection for higher oil content began as early as 7,500 cal B.P. and that high oil content cultivars were well established by 4,000 cal B.P.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207