MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1875203593 · doi:10.1139/b2012-023

Evolutionary relationships in <i>Oxytropis</i> species, as estimated from the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences point to multiple expansions into the Arctic

2012· article· en· W1875203593 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Annie Archambault, Martina V. Strömvik

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsBiologyInternal transcribed spacerPhylogenetic treeSubgenusArcticGenusRibosomal DNAPhylogeneticsBotanyEvolutionary biologyEcologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species of the genus Oxytropis are distributed in the northern hemisphere, especially in alpine and arctic areas. Although comprehensive taxonomic treatments exist for local floras, an understanding of the evolutionary relationships is lacking for the genus as a whole. To determine if different ancestral Oxytropis species colonized the North American Arctic separately, as suggested by taxonomy, we sequenced the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region from 16 Oxytropis specimens, including four species that were used in a previous transcriptome study. In addition, 81 other Oxytropis ITS sequences were retrieved from public sequence databases and included in the analysis. The whole data set was analyzed using phylogenetic trees and statistical parsimony networks. Results show that all Oxytropis ITS sequences are very similar. Furthermore, at least six lineages evolved from different temperate ancestors to colonize the North American Arctic. This pattern is believed to be typical of the arctic flora. Additionally, the sequence relationship analyses confirm that the subgenus Phacoxytropis may be ancestral in Oxytropis.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207