MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094859771 · doi:10.1017/s0960428603000052

USE OF DIAGNOSTIC SSR MARKERS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF LARIX LYALLII AND L. OCCIDENTALIS (PINACEAE)

2003· article· en· W2094859771 on OpenAlexaff
Shaheer Nadeem, Barry Jaquish, Craig Newton, P. D. Khasa

Bibliographic record

VenueEdinburgh Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaBC Research (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLarchPinaceaeBiologySporophyteBotanyChamaecyparisIdentification (biology)MicrosatelliteForestryPinus <genus>GeographyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two species-specific microsatellite or simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers (UAKLly10a and UAKLla1) were used to distinguish Larix lyallii Parl. (subalpine larch) from L. occidentalis Nutt. (western larch) (Pinaceae). These markers can easily be used for rapid identification of the two species at any stage in the sporophyte phase of the life cycle. In the future, they should prove to be an invaluable tool for determining the possible occurrence and magnitude of introgressive hybridization in overlap zones between the two species. They are also expected to be useful in validating controlled crosses between L. lyallii and L. occidentalis and for certification purposes in reforestation and tree improvement programmes aimed at producing genetically improved hybrid stock.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdinburgh Journal of BotanySame topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207