MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407763687 · doi:10.48130/frures-0024-0041

Comparing diploid and triploid apples from a diverse collection

2025· article· en· W4407763687 on OpenAlexafffund
Elaina Greaves, T. G. E. Davies, Sean Myles, Zoë Migicovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueFruit Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPloidyBiologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apples (<i>Malus</i> X. <i>domestica</i> Borkh.) are an economically important fruit species and are primarily diploid, although other ploidy levels exist. The impact of ploidy on agricultural traits in apple is not well understood but is an important factor to consider for breeding and production of apples. We used heterozygosity to infer ploidy for 970 apple accessions from a diverse collection. Next, we contrasted inferred diploid and inferred triploid apples across 10 agriculturally important traits. After correction for multiple testing, we determined that triploids have significantly higher phenolic content, but do not significantly differ from diploids for any other trait. We also determined that triploid varieties have significantly earlier release dates than diploids, suggesting that contemporary breeding programs primarily release diploid varieties. Ultimately, our results provide evidence that phenotypic differences between trees of differing ploidy are subtle and often insignificant and that there are limited measurable benefits to the use of triploids for apple production.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.344
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFruit ResearchSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207