Population structure of a lodgepole pine (<i>Pinus contorta</i>) and jack pine (<i>P. banksiana</i>) complex as revealed by random amplified polymorphic DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the population structure of a lodgepole (Pinus contorta Dougl.) and jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) complex in west central Alberta and neighboring areas by assessing random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) variability in 23 lodgepole pine, 9 jack pine, and 8 putative hybrid populations. Of 200 random primers screened, 10 that amplified 39 sharp and reproducible RAPDs were chosen for the study. None of the 39 RAPDs were unique to the parental species. RAPD diversity ranged from 0.085 to 0.190 among populations and averaged 0.143 for lodgepole pine, 0.156 for jack pine, 0.152 for hybrids, and 0.148 for all 40 populations. The estimated population differentiation based on G(ST) was 0.168 for hybrids, 0.162 for lodgepole pine, 0.155 for jack pine, and 0.247 across all 40 populations. Cluster analysis of genetic distances generally separated jack pine from lodgepole pine and hybrids, but no division could be identified that further separated lodgepole pine from hybrids. The observed weak to mild trend of "introgression by distance" in the complex and neighbouring areas was consistent with the view that introgressive hybridization between lodgepole and jack pines within and outside the hybrid zone may have been through secondary contact and primary intergradation, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".