Population diversity of Doryanthes excelsa (Doryanthaceae) in eastern Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The population diversity of Doranthes excelsa Corrêa (Doryanthaceae) was measured from nine distinct geographic populations across eastern Australia, using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers. An UPGMA dendrogram of individuals was derived from squared Euclidian distances based on the Dice (1945) algorithm. Three clusters corresponding to populations at Somersby, Newfoundland and Kremnos Creek populations were found to be distinct from the remainder of the sampled individuals. A ΦST value of 0.443 indicated that a significant diversity between geographic populations existed; this appeared to be a product of geographical distance and isolation between some of the populations. (PCR = Polymerase Chain Reaction; RAPD = Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA) The results suggest that there is lesser gene flow between the‘northern’ populations (Kremnos Creek and Newfoundland) when compared to the ‘southern’ populations and that they have a significant level of genetic isolation. The two ‘northern’ populations should therefore be regarded as being of considerable value for conservation authorities and the commercial breeding sector and should be given priority for conservation. The plants there appear to exhibit a smaller phenotype but confirming this requires further quantification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".