MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931868759 · doi:10.5683/sp2/pqde0o

Data from: The genetic architecture of UV floral patterning in sunflower

2021· dataset· en· W6931868759 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusGenetic architecturePopulationTraitDomesticationSunflowerPhenotypeGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractBackground and Aims: The patterning of floral ultraviolet (UV) pigmentation varies both intra- and interspecifically in sunflowers and many other plant species, impacts pollinator attraction, and can be critical to reproductive success and crop yields. However, the genetic basis for variation in UV patterning is largely unknown. This study examines the genetic architecture for proportional and absolute size of the UV bullseye in Helianthus argophyllus, a close relative of the domesticated sunflower. Methods: A camera modified to capture UV light (320–380 nm) was used to phenotype floral UV patterning in an F2 mapping population, then quantitative trait loci (QTL) were identified using genotyping-by-sequencing and linkage mapping. The ability of these QTL to predict the UV patterning of natural population individuals was also assessed. Key Results: Proportional UV pigmentation is additively controlled by six moderate effect QTL that are predictive of this phenotype in natural populations. In contrast, UV bullseye size is controlled by a single large effect QTL that also controls flowerhead size and co-localizes with a major flowering time QTL in Helianthus. Conclusions: The co-localization of the UV bullseye size QTL, flowerhead size QTL and a previously known flowering time QTL may indicate a single highly pleiotropic locus or several closely linked loci, which could inhibit UV bullseye size from responding to selection without change in correlated characters. The genetic architecture of proportional UV pigmentation is relatively simple and different from that of UV bullseye size, and so should be able to respond to natural or artificial selection independently.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

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)0.0110.001

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 head0.369
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisSame topicSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207