DNA content for Asian pines parallels New World relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This hypothesis is based on an observed correlation between DNA content and thermal regime for fish, zooplankton, salamanders, and some flowering plants. The Asian pine results provided no support for the latitudinal hypothesis; Asian tropical pine species did not have smaller genomes than their temperate or boreal relatives. DNA content of haploid megagametophyte tissue varied from 21.85 pg/C for hard pine Pinus densiflora Sieb. & Zucc. to 29.59 pg/C for soft pine Pinus bungeana Zucc. Pinus merkusii Jung. & De Vriese (29.63 pg/C) was the exceptional hard pine, with a genome size larger than many soft pines. The mean DNA content of Asian soft pines exceeded Asian hard pines (Δ 3.22 pg/C), a parallel to the previously reported trends for New World pines. No continental effect was detected. Based on 46 pines species sampled in centers of species diversity in Asian and the New World, soft pines had mean DNA content which exceeded hard pines by 4.97 pg/C.Key words: gymnosperms, conifers, laser flow cytometry, megagametophytes, C values, phylogeny.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".