MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104386769 · doi:10.1139/b99-129

Phylogenetic relationships in tribe Lepidieae (Brassicaceae) based on chloroplast DNA restriction site variation

2000· article· en· W2104386769 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karsten Zunk, Klaus Mummenhoff, Herbert Hurka

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Ecology and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeBrassicaceaeTribeChloroplast DNAPhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyCladisticsRestriction siteBotanyDNARestriction enzymeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tribal and subtribal boundaries within the Brassicaceae are often artificially drawn. Most of the currently recognized tribes and subtribes are separated by only a few morphological characters. Furthermore, these characters are variable even within genera, or they conflict with one another in their distribution patterns, resulting in controversial classification systems. Therefore, tribes and subtribes as traditionally delimited may not reflect natural groups. Up to now no cladistic analysis has been performed in tribe Lepidieae. In the current study, we have analyzed restriction site variation of chloroplast DNA among 41 species representing 19 genera to get insights into phylogenetic relationships within the Lepidieae. Phylogenetic lineages derived from our chloroplast data were critically compared with the traditional concepts. Our chloroplast DNA phylogeny most easily supports the classification of genera in the system of Hayek with some modifications.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations40
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Ecology and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207