MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Control Region Sequencing and Fragment RFLP Analysis for Resolving Mitochondrial DNA Variation and Phylogenetic Relationships among Great Lakes Walleyes

2000· article· en· W2085607913 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael H. Gatt, Moira M. Ferguson, Arunas P. Liskauskas

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRestriction fragment length polymorphismPhylogenetic treeHaplotypeBiologyMitochondrial DNAGeneticsMega-Restriction sitemtDNA control regionFragment (logic)Restriction fragmentEvolutionary biologyGenetic variationPolymerase chain reactionRestriction enzymeDNAGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct sequencing of 513 base pairs from the control region and restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) in two fragments totaling 7.6 kilobases (fragment RFLP) that were amplified by polymerase chain reaction were used to assess mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation in Great Lakes walleye Stizostedion vitreum. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of these mtDNA markers in detecting genetic variation and resolving phylogenetic relationships among haplotypes previously identified by RFLP analysis of the entire molecule. The fragment RFLP analysis surveyed 554 base pairs and detected almost twice as many haplotypes as did the sequencing analysis. However, both approaches resulted in similar tree topologies and resolved the three major phylogenetic assemblages published in entire-molecule RFLP studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207