MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AFLP‐based differentiation in north Atlantic species of <i>Carex</i> sect. <i>Phacocystis</i>

2007· article· en· W2094158820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esther Nakamatte, Kåre Arnstein Lye

Bibliographic record

VenueNordic Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirektoratet for Utviklingssamarbeid
KeywordsBiologyCarexSubspeciesBotanyUPGMATaxonomy (biology)Amplified fragment length polymorphismTaxonEcologyGenetic diversityGenetic variationPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 59 plants from 30 populations of 15 species of Carex sect. Phacocystis (including Carex bicolor as outgroup) from eastern Canada and northern Europe were investigated for genetic differentiation of taxa using AFLP. Seven species were studied with material from both Europe and America, three species were investigated with North American material only and five species with European material only. The neighbour joining analysis (NJ) indicates that Carex bicolor may not belong to section Phacocystis , while all other investigated species clearly belong to this section. The sorting of the species according to NJ and UPGMA is mostly in accordance with accepted taxonomy, but with the exceptions that the American C. bigelowii ssp. bigelowii may be specifically distinct from European C. bigelowii ssp. rigida , and C. stans should perhaps not be considered a subspecies or variety of C. aquatilis , but either as a separate species or as a hybrid between C. aquatilis and C. bigelowii . North American C. aquatilis is heterogenic and may contain more than one species.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNordic Journal of BotanySame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207