MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763256431 · doi:10.1007/s11295-017-1198-9

Fruit shape and reproductive self and cross compatibility for the performance of fruit set in an andromonoecious species: Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge

2017· article· en· W2763256431 on OpenAlexaff
Qing Wang, Yanzi Huang, Ziyang Wang, Yousry A. El‐Kassaby, Wenbin Guan

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Genetics & Genomes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDiallel crossInbreeding depressionPollinationFruit setOpen pollinationYield (engineering)BotanyHorticultureAgronomyInbreedingPollenPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A replicated 6 × 6 complete diallel mating among six fruit shape types of Xanthoceras sorbifolium (yellowhorn) , an andromonoecious plant known for its exceedingly low fruit and seed set, was conducted to investigate the species mating system. This mating design was implemented to investigate the relationship between fruit shape type and fruit yield, finding the most productive fruit shape-type matings, and explore maternal and paternal plants spatial arrangements for yield enhancement. The study confirmed the maternal inheritance of fruit shape type, open-pollination often associated with low fruit production, the presence of high inbreeding depression, and differential yield among fruit shape-type matings and directions and identified specific matings between fruit shape types with increased yield potential for the species’ commercial production. A high fruit yield planting spatial arrangement of parents is proposed and its pro et contra under open-pollinated production mode were discussed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree Genetics & GenomesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207