MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1938501439 · doi:10.1139/b11-077

Taxonomy of <i>Astragalus robbinsii</i> var. <i>fernaldii</i> (Fabaceae): molecular and morphological analyses support transfer to <i>Astragalus eucosmus</i>

2012· article· en· W1938501439 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paul C. Sokoloff, Lynn J. Gillespie

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Ecology and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of NatureUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFabaceaeAstragalusBotanyTaxonAmplified fragment length polymorphismChloroplast DNATaxonomy (biology)Phylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Astragalus robbinsii var. fernaldii , Fernald’s milkvetch, is a taxon of conservation concern currently due for reassessment of its provincial and federal conservation status. Restricted to a narrow region spanning Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, its taxonomic position with respect to two congeners, Astragalus eucosmus and Astragalus robbinsii var. minor , is poorly understood. To clarify the taxonomy of Fernald’s milkvetch, we studied variation in the ycf6–trnC and trnC–rpoB chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) spacers, generated amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) genotypes, and conducted a morphometric analysis. Parsimony and Bayesian analysis of the cpDNA data distinguished A. robbinsii var. minor from A. eucosmus and the majority of Fernald's milkvetch samples; both cpDNA and AFLP analysis were highly suggestive of gene flow between taxa and populations. Morphometric analysis indicates that Fernald's milkvetch is closer to A. eucosmus than to A. robbinsii var. minor in overall form and stipe length, while pubescence was not taxonomically informative. Based on these results, the recognition of Fernald's milkvetch is unwarranted; we recommend that the taxon be transferred to A. eucosmus.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Ecology and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207