MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2093464197 · doi:10.1139/g08-018

Comparative mapping among subsection<i>Australes</i>(genus<i>Pinus</i>, family Pinaceae)

2008· article· en· W2093464197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mervyn Shepherd, Claire G. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyAllopatric speciationPinaceaeEvolutionary biologySympatric speciationHybrid zoneGenusBotanyGeneticsPinus <genus>Genetic variationGene flowGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative mapping in conifers has not yet been used to test for small-scale genomic disruptions such as inversions, duplications, and deletions occurring between closely related taxa. Using comparative mapping to probe this smaller scale of inquiry may provide clues about speciation in a phylogenetically problematic taxon, the diploxylon pine subsection Australes (genus Pinus, family Pinaceae). Genetic maps were constructed for two allopatric species of Australes, P. elliottii var. elliottii and P. caribaea var. hondurensis, using microsatellites and an F1 hybrid. A third map was generated directly from the meiotic products of an adult F1 hybrid, eliminating the need for an F2 generation. Numerous small-scale disruptions were detected in addition to synteny and collinearity, and these included (1) map shrinkage, (2) a paracentric inversion, (3) transmission ratio distortion, and (4) mild selection against a parental haplotype. Such cryptic signatures of genomic divergence between closely related interfertile species are useful in elucidating this problematic evolutionary history.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→