MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775522620 · doi:10.21273/jashs04252-17

Recurrent Selection for Rubber Yield in Russian Dandelion

2017· article· en· W2775522620 on OpenAlexafffund
Katrina J.M. Hodgson-Kratky, Olivier M. Stoffyn, David J. Wolyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsBridgestone Americas
KeywordsDandelionLoamNatural rubberHevea brasiliensisHeveaBiologyPopulationDry weightAgronomyYield (engineering)HorticultureBotanySoil waterChemistryEcologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Russian dandelion [ Taraxacum kok-saghyz (TKS)] is a promising alternative to the Para rubber tree ( Hevea brasiliensis ) as a source of natural rubber; however, rubber yields must be improved for this undomesticated species to become a profitable new crop. Half-sib family recurrent selection was conducted for four cycles to increase rubber yield, estimated as the product of rubber percentage, and root dry weight per plant. Two distinct populations were developed for adaptation to sand and loam soil types. Rubber percentage increased from 4.17% for the cycle 0 (C 0 ) population to 6.40% for the C 4 -loam population. Rubber yield also increased from 0.15 to 0.22 g/plant after four selection cycles. Although phenotypic variation was observed, selection had no effect on root weight; all populations averaged 3.70 g/plant. Rubber yield and percentage and root dry weight were not increased after four selection cycles on sandy soils, likely because of poor adaptation and high environmental variation. Year and soil type affected rubber yields; however, rubber percentage was more stable than root dry weight. Overall, russian dandelion can be improved for rubber yield, and further studies with increased error control should be considered to enhance root dry weight.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Horticultural ScienceSame topicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesisFrench-language works237,207