MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136534444 · doi:10.1139/b02-057

A comparison of the 5S rDNA diversity in the<i>Hordeum brachyantherum</i><i>californicum</i>complex with those of the eastern Asiatic<i>Hordeum roshevitzii</i>and the South American<i>Hordeum cordobense</i>(Triticeae: Poaceae)

2002· article· en· W2136534444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bernard R. Baum, Douglas A. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHordeum vulgareBiologyHordeumBotanyGeneticsCladisticsGenePhylogeneticsPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amplification of the 5S rDNA gene by the polymerase chain reaction, followed by cloning and sequencing, was used to generate data from 23 seed accessions of Hordeum brachyantherum Nevski, Hordeum californicum Covas et Stebbins, Hordeum cordobense Bothmer, Jacobsen et Nicora, and Hordeum roshevitzii Bowden. One hundred and fourteen clones were analyzed, resulting in the detection of four different 5S DNA unit classes. Three of them, long H1, long H2, and long Y2, had been previously reported. The long H3 class, described for the first time, is present only in H. roshevitzii but can be grouped with previously unassigned units of Hordeum bulbosum L. and Hordeum spontaneum C. Koch. Based upon the analyses of 5S rDNA sequences, we found that (i) the long H2 unit class was not found in the Asiatic H. roshevitzii and therefore may be restricted to the American species, (ii) there is no strong support that H. brachyantherum and H. californicum are worthy of species recognition, and (iii) cladistic analysis of the consensus sequences of the four paralogous unit classes demonstrated that long Y2 is the most distant from the three long H classes.Key words: 5S DNA gene, Hordeum, unit classes.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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