MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379164675 · doi:10.5376/mpb.2023.14.0012

Brief History of Plant Breeding

2023· article· en· W4379164675 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Plant Breeding · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomesticationBiologyDiversification (marketing strategy)TransplantationAgriculturePlant breedingBiotechnologyAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the early stages of plant breeding history, including the development and application of techniques such as transplantation, division, cutting, grafting, and primitive domestication. These techniques provided the foundation for plant propagation and improvement, promoting agricultural development and societal progress. Transplantation and division techniques enabled plants to grow in different environments and expanded the range of cultivation. Cutting and grafting techniques allowed plants to reproduce and maintain desirable traits, promoting variety diversification and improvement. This also marked the primitive domestication where wild plants gradually transitioned into cultivated plants, as humans began consciously selecting and cultivating superior plant varieties to adapt to human needs and environmental changes.

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.

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 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 score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.147 · 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