MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154678872 · doi:10.1614/ws-03-042r

Genetic diversity of biennial wormwood

2004· article· en· W2154678872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lemma W. Mengistu, Michael J. Christoffers, George O. Kegode

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye InstitutePurdue UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsGenetic diversityBiologyGene flowBotanyGenetic variationPopulationGeneGeneticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biennial wormwood is native to North America and has become an important weed problem in soybean and dry bean fields of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota in the United States and in the prairie provinces of Canada. Intersimple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers were used to study the genetic diversity among six biennial wormwood and one annual wormwood populations. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequences from internal transcribed spacer (ITS1 and ITS2) regions of ribosomal DNA and morphological diversity among the biennial and annual wormwood populations were also studied. High levels of genetic diversity were evident with Nei's gene diversity statistic ( h ) = 0.40 for biennial wormwood and h = 0.36 for annual wormwood. Total diversity of six biennial wormwood populations was H T = 0.40, and 22% of this diversity was among populations ( G ST = 0.22). Estimated gene flow among biennial wormwood populations was low ( Nm = 0.9), and high levels of differentiation may be due in part to low levels of genetic exchange among biennial wormwood populations. Although biennial wormwood behaves more like an annual than a biennial, the ISSR, ITS, and morphological studies show that the two species are dissimilar.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed ScienceSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207