MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contrasting evolutionary forces driving population structure at expressed sequence tag polymorphisms, allozymes and quantitative traits in white spruce

2001· article· en· W2162724841 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Pablo Jaramillo‐Correa, Jean Beaulieu, Jean Bousquet

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenetic variationPopulationQuantitative trait locusWhite (mutation)AlleleGeneticsCoding regionGeneEvolutionary biologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patterns of variation in quantitative characters and genetic markers were compared among six regional populations of white spruce [Picea glauca (Moench) Voss]. Although some phenotypic characters were correlated with latitude (r = 0.791), longitude (r = -0.796) and precipitation during the growing season (r = 0.789), variability at genetic markers was not correlated with geographical or bioclimatic variables, and followed neutral expectations. Estimates of genetic diversity and population differentiation for 14 allozymes (translated regions of coding genes) were essentially indistinguishable from those observed for 11 expressed sequence tag polymorphisms (ESTPs) from untranslated regions of coding genes. Variation among populations for quantitative traits such as eighth year height (Q(ST) = 0.082), thirteenth year height (Q(ST) = 0.069), total wood density (Q(ST) = 0.102) and date of budset (Q(ST) = 0.246), was greater than for allozymes (G(ST) = 0.014) and ESTPs (G(ST) = 0.019). These trends suggest a strong adaptive response in quantitative traits, contrasting to allozymes and ESTPs where no selective response could be detected and where populations appeared to be essentially in a migration-drift equilibrium.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations102
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207