MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136732544 · doi:10.3732/ajb.94.4.551

Molecular insights into the taxonomy of <i>Glyceria</i> (Poaceae: Meliceae) in North America

2007· article· en· W2136732544 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian G. Whipple, Mary E. Barkworth, B. Shaun Bushman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIntergenic regionBotanyChloroplast DNATaxonTaxonomy (biology)HybridPoaceaeBotánicaChloroplastGenomeGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eighteen Glyceria species grow in the United States and Canada, with 16 being native to the region. We used data from morphology and three chloroplast DNA intergenic regions to address taxonomic questions concerning Glyceria in North America, particularly the status of G. declinata, G. occidentalis, G. fluitans, G. striata, and G. elata in western North America. The chloroplast data confirmed the presence of two European species, G. declinata and G. fluitans, in western North America. Glyceria occidentalis was exceptional among the taxa studied in having chloroplast genotypes that fell into two different clades, one of which contained G. fluitans and the other the North American species G. leptostachya. The morphological data showed G. occidentalis to be intermediate between G. fluitans and G. leptostachya with respect to their distinguishing characters. Based on these results, we hypothesize that G. occidentalis consists of hybrids between G. fluitans and G. leptostachya. Glyceria elata and G. striata, which have sometimes been treated as a single species, had different chloroplast genotypes, supporting their recognition as distinct taxa. DNA data from all three intergenic regions would be needed for unequivocal identification of the non-hybrid species examined.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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