Molecular diversity and relationships among<i>Elymus trachycaulus</i>,<i>E. subsecundus</i>,<i>E. virescens</i>,<i>E. violaceus</i>, and<i>E. hyperarcticus</i>(Poaceae: Triticeae) as determined by amplified fragment length polymorphism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological similarity among E. trachycaulus, E. virescens, E. violaceus, and E. hyperarcticus has often been noted. Taxonomists have tried to discriminate among these taxa using morphological characters and a number of different relationships among them have been suggested. However, the genetic relationships among these taxa are still unknown. AFLP analysis was used to characterize the molecular diversity of these taxa and to examine genetic relationships among them. A high degree of genetic identity was apparent among 7 accessions of E. virescens. The similarity values ranged from 0.90 to 0.99 with an average of 0.94. The mean similarity values among 3 E. hyperarcticus and among 5 E. violaceus accessions were 0.84 (0.81-0.87) and 0.77 (0.66-0.90), respectively. The similarity values among 17 E. trachycaulus accessions ranged from 0.49 to 0.92 with an average of 0.75. The 5 accessions of E. subsecundus displayed high variation, with similarity values between 0.52 and 0.68 and a mean value of 0.59. Both maximum-parsimony (MP) and neighbor-joining (NJ) analyses showed that all 7 accessions of E. virescens formed a clade, indicating a monophyletic origin. On the other hand, Elymus trachycaulus, E. subsecundus, and E. violaceus were each paraphyletic and separated into different genetically distinct groups. Among these 5 taxa, E. virescens was genetically similar to E. trachycaulus, and E. violaceus was genetically similar to E. hyperarcticus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".