MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001938578 · doi:10.1139/b08-121

Differentiation of three closely related Japanese oak species and detection of interspecific hybrids using AFLP markers

2009· article· en· W2001938578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asako Matsumoto, T. Kawahara, Ayako Kanazashi, Hiroshi Yoshimaru, Makoto Takahashi, Yoshihiko Tsumura

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHybridAmplified fragment length polymorphismInterspecific competitionBotanyIntrogressionInterspecific hybridsFagaceaeMorphological analysisGenetic diversityGeneticsPopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three white-oak species ( Quercus crispula Blume, Quercus dentata Thunb., and Quercus serrata Thunb.) are native, widely distributed, and prominent species in the temperate deciduous forests of Japan. They are closely related to each other and overlapping morphological variation in some traits is observed, although they differ from each other in appearance. To distinguish these species genetically, we carried out clustering analysis based on Bayesian approach by AFLP markers using morphologically typical trees. Although no completely species-specific markers were obtained, these species could be distinguished and their genetic relationships were evaluated based on differences in frequencies of 66 polymorphic markers, including four that were almost completely species-specific. We also attempted to characterize putative interspecific hybrids between Q. crispula and Q. dentata sampled in a mixed stand. Two programs, HINDEX and STRUCTURE, were successfully used to detect several hybrid individuals without any prior information about their morphological traits. However, STRUCTURE and HINDEX gave conflicting indications regarding the admixture levels in some individuals.

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 score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207