MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239388156 · doi:10.1139/g99-034

RAPD analysis of seed purity in a commercial hybrid cabbage (<i>Brassica oleracea </i>var. <i>capitata</i>) cultivar

2000· article· en· W4239388156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phillip A. Crockett, Prem L. Bhalla, C K Lee, Mohan B. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsRAPDBrassica oleraceaBiologyCapitataCultivarBrassicaHybridBotanyHorticultureBrassica rapaGenetic diversityPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers for evaluating seed purity in a commercial F1-hybrid cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) cultivar is demonstrated. Genomic DNA isolated from single ungerminated seed was found to be suitable for RAPD analysis. DNA from F1-hybrid and its parental lines was subjected to RAPD screening with 36 random decamer arbitrary primers. A total of 241 scorable products were observed with 54 (22%) being polymorphic. The RAPD data showed that the parental lines of this commercial cabbage cultivar were not very closely related. Two primers were chosen for purity testing of the F1-hybrid seeds. The sib (inbred seed; seed from self-pollination of parental lines) contamination results obtained by RAPD analysis were comparable to the commonly used grow-out trial and isozyme analysis, hence showing that RAPD analysis can be used for seed purity testing of commercial hybrid cabbage seeds. Key words: Brassica, cabbage, RAPD, seed purity test, F1-hybrid seed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207