MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069865632 · doi:10.1139/x01-198

Geographical variation in random amplified polymorphic DNA and quantitative traits in Norway spruce

2002· article· en· W2069865632 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A.M. Collignon, H. van de Sype

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicea abiesRange (aeronautics)BiologyPollenGeographyEcologyFragmentation (computing)PhenologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative traits and random amplified polymorphic DNA variations were investigated on the whole natural range of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Results showed that the species can be separated into two main groups (northern and central Europe) using both types of characters. Such spatial and geographical fragmentation of species natural range rarely occurs in conifers and is consistent with prolonged geographical isolation within two refugial zones located in distinct environmental conditions (Moscow area and east of central European mountains). Within each of these two infraspecific groups, we revealed an apparent uncoupling between quantitative traits (related to growth, phenology, and wood quality) and DNA. However, the combination of both molecular and quantitative traits information provided new insights about geographical patterns of variation: a dominant latitudinal gradient was found in the Baltico-Nordic domain contrasting markedly with the main east–west migration expected from pollen data, while in central Europe, a noticeable longitudinal gradient was congruent with east–west migration. The concordance and discrepancies between quantitative traits and DNA are discussed in terms of historical events in P. abies.

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)0.001
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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations57
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207