MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2622905139

캐나다 옥수수 자식계통들에 대한 유전적 다양성 및 집단구조 분석

2017· article· ko· W2622905139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
홍탁기, 사규진, 이주경

Bibliographic record

Venue한국육종학회지 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInbred strainGenetic diversityBiologyPopulationAlleleLocus (genetics)Genetic distanceGeneticsHybridGenetic similarityGenetic variationAgronomyGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We collected 32 maize inbred lines from eastern cereal and oilseed research center in Canada to develop new maize varieties. We also evaluated genetic diversity, genetic relationships, and population structure using 35 SSR markers. A total of 269 alleles were revealed in 35 loci with an average of 7.69 and a range between 3 and 15 alleles per locus. The genetic diversity values varied from 0.176 to 0.889 with an average of 0.691. The polymorphic information content varied from 0.171 to 0.879 with an average of 0.659. Population structure analysis indicated that 32 Canadian maize inbred lines comprised four major groups and one admixed group based on a membership probability threshold of 0.80. The four major groups contained 13, 2, 5 and 2 maize inbred lines, respectively. From genetic relationships analysis, the all inbred lines were divided into three main groups at 26% genetic similarity. Group I included 22 inbred lines, and Group II included 9 inbred lines. Group III consist of only one inbred line. The results in this study would be useful for the improvement and development of new cultivars, planning crosses for hybrids or development of inbred line in maize breeding program

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue한국육종학회지→Same topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals→French-language works237,207→