MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031338126 · doi:10.1139/g01-063

Molecular and cytological analyses of<i>Deschampsia cespitosa</i>populations from Northern Ontario (Canada)

2001· article· en· W2031338126 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
K. K. Nkongolo, A Deck, Pramuka Michael

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRAPDBiologyGeneticsPopulationAnalysis of molecular varianceGenetic variationGenetic diversityGeneGene flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deschampsia cespitosa is widely dispersed around the globe, particularly in the northern hemisphere. A high tolerance to adverse environmental conditions allows D. cespitosa to colonize and dominate plots of land that are uninhabitable by other plants. The main objective of the present study was to determine the degree of genetic variation and relatedness among D. cespitosa populations from heavy metal contaminated sites and uncontaminated sites in Northern Ontario, using RAPD markers. Genomic DNA samples from individual plants were analyzed using 35 oligonucleotides of random sequence. Twenty-eight of these primers allowed amplification of random polymorphic DNA (RAPD) loci. Overall, 90% of RAPD bands were polymorphic. Analysis of molecular variance revealed that 72% of the variation could be attributed to individual differences within each of the populations. The within- and among-region variations accounted for 14 and 15% of the total molecular variance, respectively. Population-specific RAPD markers were identified. RAPD markers specific to D. cespitosa were isolated, cloned, and characterized. Cytogenetic analysis revealed a high level of aneuploidy in all the populations from Northern Ontario, with chromosome numbers varying from 2n = 18 to 2n = 26.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207