Peppermint (Menths piperita)- A local strain from kangra valley of Himachal Pradesh.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<i>Cannabis sativa</i> L. is cultivated globally for its cannabinoid-dense inflorescences. Commercial preference for sinsemilla has led to the development of methods for producing feminized seeds through cross-pollination of cosexual (masculinized) female plants. Although the induction of cosexuality in <i>Cannabis</i> plants is common, to date, no work has empirically tested how masculinization of female <i>Cannabis</i> plants impacts male flowering, pollen production, pollen fitness, and related life-history trade-offs. Here, we cultivated a population of <i>Cannabis</i> plants (CFX-2) and explored how the route to cosexuality (drought vs. chemical induction) impacted flowering phenology, pollen production, and pollen fitness, relative to unsexual male plants. Unisexual males flowered earlier and longer than cosexual plants and produced 223% more total pollen (F<sub>2,28</sub> = 74.41, <i>p</i> < 0.001), but per-flower pollen production did not differ across reproductive phenotypes (F<sub>2,21</sub> = 0.887, <i>p</i> = 0.427). Pollen viability was 200% higher in unisexual males and drought-induced cosexuals (F<sub>2,36</sub> = 189.70, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Pollen non-abortion rates only differed in a marginally significant way across reproductive phenotypes (F<sub>2,36</sub> = 3.00, <i>p</i> = 0.06). Here, we demonstrate that masculinization of female plants impacts whole-plant pollen production and pollen fitness in <i>Cannabis sativa</i>.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".