MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6941185060 · doi:10.1051/ebr:2003016/pdf

Transgenic

2004· article· en· W6941185060 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsBrassica rapaDiamondback mothBrassicaHybridInsectLarvaInstarPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Release of transgenic insect-resistant crops creates the potential not only for the insect pest to evolve resistance but for the escape of transgenes that may confer novel or enhanced fitness-related traits through hybridization with their wild relatives. The differential response of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) populations in eastern and western Canada to Bt-producing (GT) Brassica napus and the potential for enhanced fitness of GT B. napus and weedy GT Brassica rapa × B. napus hybrid populations (F1, BC1, BC2) were studied. Comparative bioassays using neonates and 4th instars showed that GT B. napus and GT B. rapa × B. napus hybrids are lethal to larvae from both populations. No measurable plant fitness advantage (reproductive dry weight) was observed for GT B. napus (crop) and GT B. rapa × B. napus hybrid populations at low insect pressure (1 larva per leaf). At high insect densities (>10 larvae per leaf), vegetative plant weight was not significantly different for GT B. napus and non-GT B. napus, whereas reproductive plant weight and proportion of reproductive material were significantly higher in GT B. napus. Establishment of the Bt trait in wild B. rapa populations may also increase its competitive advantage under high insect pressure.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.012

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207