MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006020198 · doi:10.1139/b03-020

Morphology and molecular diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in wild and cultivated yew (<i>Taxus baccata</i>)

2003· article· en· W2006020198 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tesfaye Wubet, Michael Weiß, Ingrid Kottke, Franz Oberwinkler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsTaxusBiologyInternal transcribed spacerRibosomal DNABotanyGlomeromycotaPhylogenetic treeGlomusSpacer DNAColonizationMycorrhizaGeneticsEcologySymbiosisGeneBacteriaSpore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taxus baccata L. roots collected from two sites in southern Germany were heavily colonized by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). The colonization pattern was of the Paris type. The diversity of the colonizing AMF species was investigated using polymerase chain reaction based molecular techniques. The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of the DNA from AMF within the roots was amplified using Glomeromycota-specific primers and then cloned and sequenced. Phylogenetic analysis using a data set of 5.8S rDNA sequences from a wide range of glomeralean taxa as well as data sets of partial ITS2 sequences from glomeralean subgroups indicated root colonization by four sequence types of Glomus and one sequence type of Archaeospora. These sequence types are distinct from any previously published sequences and differed between the two study sites.Key words: arbuscular mycorrhiza, Paris-type AM, molecular diversity, ribosomal internal transcribed spacers, Taxus baccata.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations46
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207