Genetic diversity and distribution of<i>Sarracenia purpurea</i>(Sarraceniaceae) in the western Lake Superior basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restoring plant populations requires an understanding of plant morphological adaptation to site locations and population genetic diversity and relatedness. This study examined the genetic and morphological diversity of Sarracenia purpurea L. within the natural fragmentation of western Lake Superior. Populations of S. purpurea were compared among three locations: Isle Royale National Park, the Keweenaw Peninsula, Michigan, USA, and Sleeping Giant Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. Analysis of genetic and demographic data showed Canadian populations to be less robust with smaller plant sizes. Canadian populations were also slightly distinct genetically. Overall genetic diversity appears moderate (H = 0.30–0.36) and populations genetically similar. Analysis of molecular variance showed only 3.83% of variation among the three locations (p = 0.0049). Fragmentation did not have a distinguishable effect on genetic diversity and morphological characters but the limestone bedrock geology of the Canadian region may be starting to influence plant morphology and genetic differentiation. This indicates that restoration can take place within the western basin of Lake Superior using a variety of seed sources but regional geology may influence observed plant morphology.
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".