Genetic structure and relationships among populations of<i>Hyalella azteca</i>and<i>H</i>.<i>montezuma</i>(Crustacea:Amphipoda)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allozyme analysis was used to examine the genetic structure of 12 Hyalella azteca populations collected from geographically isolated sites in the United States and Canada. Hyalella montezuma also was analyzed electrophoretically to determine genetic differentiation between recognized congeners. Extensive qualitative and quantitative genetic differentiation was observed across the 9 electrophoretically identified groups, which were all presumed to be H. azteca. Levels of genetic differentiation between all pairs of H. azteca groups were higher than when any one of them was compared to H. montezuma (Nei’s genetic distance, D = 0.27–2.27). These groups were considered distinct species because of large genetic differences, probable lack of gene flow, comparatively larger allozyme differences than observed between H. azteca and H. montezuma, prominent local differentiation, and extremely low genetic variability. Genotype frequencies in all populations markedly deviated from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium with a deficiency of heterozygotes. Hyalella populations were strongly subdivided even within a local region. No positive trend was observed between genetic and geographic distance. A thorough molecular systematic analysis of populations throughout the range of H. azteca is essential to identify the actual number of species included in this taxon.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".