MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980645047 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2019-0109

Pollen-mediated gene flow in managed fields of lowbush blueberry

2019· article· en· W2980645047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa J. Rowland, Elizabeth L. Ogden, Daniel J. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenVacciniumBiologyPollinatorBotanySeedlingEricaceaeGene flowPollinationHorticultureBerryGeneGenetic variationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollen-mediated gene flow was analyzed in two managed fields of lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) in Maine. Seedlings derived from open-pollinated crosses of two mother plants, one from each of the two fields, were genotyped using simple sequence repeat markers. The mother plants, the four to five nearest neighbour plants, and a group of 22–23 plants further away from the site of fruit collection were genotyped as well. The paternity of 70 seedlings produced by the mother plants, 35 from each field, was analyzed using FAMOZ to determine if each seedling was most likely a result of a self-cross, a cross with one of the nearest neighbours, or a cross from outside the nearest neighbourhood. Approximately 91%–97% of the seedlings appeared to result from crosses with plants outside the nearest neighbourhood, whereas 0% appeared to have resulted from self-crosses. This suggests that the primary pollinators of lowbush blueberry, native bees and honey bees, routinely collect and move pollen from distances greater than the adjacent neighbours of the plants receiving the pollen.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.151 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→