MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An investigation of genetic variation in <i>Carthamus lanatus</i> in New South Wales, Australia, using intersimple sequence repeats (ISSR) analysis

2003· article· en· W2025000671 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gavin Ash, Rosy Raman, N. S. Crump

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCarthamusGenetic diversityBiologyWeedGenetic variationMicrosatelliteBotanyGeneticsPopulationAlleleTraditional medicineMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Carthamus lanatus is a widespread and troublesome weed of crops and pastures in Australia. It is viewed as a target for both inundative and classical biological control. As fungal biological control agents are often specific in terms of their host range, the genetic variation within the host may be important in their successful deployment. The detection of genetic variation in populations of C. lanatus from New South Wales was studied using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐based, intersimple sequence repeats (ISSR) analysis. DNA extracted from plant samples from 11 locations in New South Wales was compared with one sample from Western Australia and one accession of the closely related crop plant, safflower. The analysis indicated that there were two distinct groups of C. lanatus that correlated with location (northern and southern regions). Within‐group genetic diversity, as determined by the Shannon genetic diversity index, was low at 0.33 in the southern group and 0.22 in the northern group. The presence of these groups may have implications for the biological control of C. lanatus using exotic fungi. In any screening of candidate agents, representatives of these populations should be included.

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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.121 · 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

Citations44
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed ResearchSame topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207