MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112841175 · doi:10.1093/jhered/91.6.458

A comparison of RAPD versus microsatellite DNA markers in population studies of the Massasauga rattlesnake

2000· article· en· W2112841175 on OpenAlex
Stephen C. Lougheed

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heredity · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosatelliteBiologyRAPDEvolutionary biologyGenetic markerPopulationGenetic structureAnalysis of molecular varianceThreatened speciesMolecular markerGeneticsZoologyGenetic variationEcologyGenetic diversityGeneHabitatAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared genetic differentiation among populations of the threatened massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus c. catenatus) using two types of nuclear molecular markers: randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers and microsatellites. Analyses of molecular variance (AMOVA) and G(ST) and F(ST) analyses indicated that levels of among-population differentiation between regional populations (>100 km) were comparable for both markers. However, microsatellites were superior in population assignment tests and at discerning fine-scale genetic differentiation between subpopulations separated by tens of kilometers. These results argue that both types of markers are suitable for defining broad-scale genetic structures in snake populations and can provide important inputs into conservation initiatives of focal taxa. However, our analyses suggest that microsatellites 3re better for detecting structure at limited spatial scales.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.284 · 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