MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042647963 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2020-0029

Characterizing genetically diverse blue grama [<i>Bouteloua gracilis</i> (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ex Griffiths] seed sources

2020· article· en· W3042647963 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
G. Friesen, S. Ray Smith, Douglas J. Cattani, Alexandria T. Phan

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcotypeBiologyBouteloua gracilisCultivarBotanyPopulationAgronomyGrassland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for regionally adapted native grass seed sources for the northern Great Plains has resulted in the commercial release of a range of plant materials, including ecovars™ 1 . Ecovars™ are multisite composite populations developed to combine broad genetic diversity from a geographic region. The objective of this study was to determine whether morphological data could be used to distinguish between genetically diverse blue grama [Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ex Griffiths] seed sources through classical statistical methods. Entries included a Manitoba (MB) ecovar™, a USDA–NRCS released cultivar ‘Bad River’, and ecotypes from Wyoming and Minnesota. Vegetative and reproductive measurements and ratings were taken from a spaced-plant nursery during 2000–2001 in Carman, Manitoba, Canada. The results were analyzed using statistical techniques including: ANOVA, least significant difference, canonical discriminant analysis (CDA), and coefficients of variation. These techniques distinguished four genetically diverse seed sources from each other through CDA. As hypothesized, there was greater within-population genetic diversity for the MB ecovar™ and Wyoming and Minnesota ecotypes, compared with ‘Bad River’. Our results indicate that genetically diverse blue grama seed sources can be distinguished, based on phenotypic measurements.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.189 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207