MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4284676290 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270799

Methods for characterizing pollen fitness in Cannabis sativa L.

2022· article· en· W4284676290 on OpenAlexafffund
Sydney B. Wizenberg, Michelle Dang, Lesley G. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPollenGametophyteBiologySporophyteGerminationStamenOvulePollinationBotanyGynoeciumHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollen grains are male gametophytes, an ephemeral haploid generation of plants, that commonly engage in competition for a limited supply of ovules. Since variation in reproductive capabilities among male gametophytes may influence the direction and pace of evolution in populations, we must be able to quantify the relative fitness of gametophytes from different sires. To explore this, we estimated the relative fitness of groups of male gametophytes in a dioecious, wind-pollinated model system, Cannabis sativa, by characterizing the non-abortion rate (measured via chemical staining) and viability (measured via in vitro germination) of pollen from multiple sires. Pollen viability quickly declined within two weeks of anther dehiscence, and pollen stored under freezer conditions did not germinate regardless of storage time. In contrast, pollen non-abortion rates declined slowly and persisted longer than the lifetime of a sporophyte plant under both room temperature and freezer conditions. Pollen samples that underwent both viability and non-abortion rate analysis displayed no significant correlation, implying that researchers cannot predict pollen viability from non-abortion rates, nor infer male gametophytic fitness from a single measure. Our work demonstrates two independent, differential approaches to measure proxies of male fitness in C. sativa.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.127 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→