MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cross‐species comparison of microsatellite loci in the <i>Culex pipiens</i> complex and beyond

2005· article· en· W2131641344 on OpenAlexafffund
J. L. Smith, Nusha Keyghobadi, Michael A. Matrone, R. L. Escher, Dina M. Fonseca

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Notes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeOkanagan College
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthDivision of Environmental BiologyUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsBiologyMicrosatelliteCulex pipiensSubspeciesPhylogenetic treeGeneticsEvolutionary biologyContext (archaeology)Species complexZoologyEcologyGeneAlleleLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the past, we have developed microsatellite loci from the two most common members of the Culex pipiens complex, Culex quinquefasciatus and Culex pipiens . Here we describe seven additional loci and present an extensive survey of a panel of 20 loci across most of the species and subspecies in the complex as well as in morphologically related species. Because we observed a high degree of polymorphism in the flanking regions, we designed new primers and surveyed multiple populations. We present alternate primers and discuss the cross‐species usefulness of these Culex microsatellite loci in a phylogenetic context.

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 score0.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations58
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Ecology NotesSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207