MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972258594 · doi:10.1139/b01-016

Allozyme variation and population structure of <i>Carex humilis</i> var. <i>nana</i> (Cyperaceae) in Korea

2001· article· en· W1972258594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Man Kyu Huh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarexGenetic diversityBiologyCyperaceaePopulationGenetic structureGene flowGenetic variationHerbaceous plantBotanyDemographyPoaceaeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic diversity and population structure of 22 Carex humilis var. nana Ohwi (Cyperaceae) populations in Korea were determined using genetic variation at 23 allozyme loci. This is a long-lived herbaceous species with a widespread distribution in eastern Asia. The 12 enzymes revealed 23 putative loci, of which 11 were polymorphic (47.8%). Genetic diversity at the varietal level and at the population level was 0.131 and 0.118, respectively. Total genetic diversity (H T = 0.274) and within population genetic diversity (H S = 0.256) were high, whereas the extent of the population divergence was relatively low (G ST = 0.068). An indirect estimate of the number of migrants per generation (Nm = 3.42) indicated that gene flow was high among Korean populations. Wide geographic ranges, perennial herbaceous nature, and the persistence of multiple generations are associated with the high level of genetic variation. A distinct difference between Asian and North American Carex is shown in the proportion of genetic variation (G ST ) (p &lt; 0.001). The mean G ST of Asian Carex was estimated as 0.056; thus, only 5.6% of genetic variability was distributed among populations, whereas the mean G ST of North American Carex was estimated as 19.5% (3.5 times higher). It is probable that the geographical distance between population pairs and presence or absence of glacial history may play roles in the substantial difference between both groups.Key words: Carex humilis var. nana, genetic diversity, population structure.

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 score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207