MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030786553 · doi:10.1139/x04-125

Geographic allozyme variation in Atlantic white-cedar,<i>Chamaecyparis thyoides</i>(Cupressaceae)

2004· article· en· W2030786553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kristin A. Mylecraine, John E. Kuser, Peter E. Smouse, George L. Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAnalysis of molecular varianceEcologyRange (aeronautics)PleistocenePopulationGenetic variationGeographyGenetic structureDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) B.S.P. is an important wetland tree species occurring along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Substantial decline over the past two centuries has led to interest in the geographic pattern of genetic variation of the species, as it affects both restoration and ongoing management. We examined the extent and distribution of allozyme variation among 31 populations throughout the species' range. Averaged across populations, the mean number of alleles per locus (A) was 1.94, the effective number of alleles per locus (A e ) was 1.31, expected heterozygosity (H e ) was 0.16, and the proportion of polymorphic loci (P) was 63.6%. Significant population differentiation was apparent, with F ST = 0.085. Using analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), we were able to ascribe 6% of the total variation to differences between varieties. We identified three main geographical regions: (1) Atlantic Coastal, (2) peninsular Florida, and (3) Gulf Coast. Within the Gulf Coast region, three subregions are apparent: central Florida panhandle, western Florida panhandle, and Mississippi. This geographic pattern may have resulted from three or more separate Pleistocene glacial refugia and suggests that propagules for regeneration and restoration activities should not be moved out of their region of origin.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207