MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GENETIC STRUCTURE VARIABILITY OF KELP <i>ALARIA MARGINATA</i> OVER SPACE AND TIME

2000· article· en· W1994565300 on OpenAlexaff
Handojo T. Kusumo, Louis D. Druehl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsBamfield Marine Sciences CentreSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyKelpAmplified fragment length polymorphismGenetic variabilityGenetic similarityGenetic structureGenetic distanceGene flowEcologyGenetic variationGenetic diversityGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genetic variability of Alaria marginata Postels & Ruprecht was investigated spatially and seasonally using the finger printing technique of amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP). Using 206 scoreable bands generated by one primer pair, individual plants that were separated by as little as a few decimeters to> 100 km could be distinguished, and followed an isolation‐by‐distance model. Genetic similarity ranged from 76% for patches (a few decimeters in diameter), to 71% for individual kelp stands (15 m across) and 67% for a group of stands separated by 185 km. Greater genetic similarity of patches occurred at the wave‐sheltered site than at wave‐exposed site. The influence of wave to genetic variability and the ability to predict gene flow on small stretch of beach were discussed. In one stand, genetic similarities were markedly different between seasons. This seasonal pattern may be the result of different age groups dominating the sampled stands over time. The genetic structure of A. marginata comprises local scale (patch and within stand) heterogeneity and larger scale (between stands) homogeneity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207