MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1877572441 · doi:10.4141/cjps2011-180

Phylogeny of Korean <i>Rubus</i> (Rosaceae) based on the second intron of the <i>LEAFY</i> gene

2012· article· en· W1877572441 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ji‐Young Yang, Ho‐Sung Yoon, Jae‐Hong Pak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsLeafyRubusBiologyPhylogenetic treeBotanyPhylogeneticsPetalRosaceaeGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yang, J., Yoon, H.-S. and Pak. J.-H. 2012. Phylogeny of Korean Rubus (Rosaceae) based on the second intron of the LEAFY gene. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 461–472. The second intron of the LEAFY gene was used for phylogenetic analysis of Rubus (Rosaceae). The LEAFY gene is conserved among a wide variety of plants and is known to be involved in the morphological evolution of plants. Sequence comparison of LEAFY homologues revealed the phylogenetic relationships of previously unresolved taxa, suggesting the usefulness of this marker rather than the ITS region for representing nuclear gene trees. In addition, a combined analysis of the trnL/F intergenic region of chloroplast DNA and the second intron of the LEAFY gene yielded more imformative data. Based on the data, it was inferred that evolution proceeded from herbs to woody plants, compound leaf to simple leaf, and pink petal to white petal within Korean Rubus taxa. Moreover, the LEAFY and trnL/F combined phylogeny had similar topology with the Rubus classification based on morphological characteristics. Therefore, our results indicate that LEAFY and trnL/F were valuable regions for analyzing the phylogenetic relationships among the Rubus taxa in Korea.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207