MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2173452224

Development of Microsatellite Markers for investigation of relationships among closely related Carthamus species.

2008· article· en· W2173452224 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Bowles, Jocelyn C. Hall, Allen G. Good, S. E. Knights, T. D. Potter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarthamusMicrosatelliteIntrogressionBiologyGenusPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyRange (aeronautics)BotanyGeneticsAlleleTraditional medicineGeneMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carthamus is a diverse group of plants that are of economic interest due to the commercial growth of one member, C. tinctorius (safflower). Recent attention in using safflower as a crop for pharmaceutical production necessitates a better understanding of the relationships between this species and its wild relatives. To this end, molecular markers need to be developed that have appropriate variation and that can be utilized across a range of species. The goal of this research was to isolate microsatellite makers that were able to reliably amplify across the genus. Initial screens of safflower resulted in 48 promising markers, of which eight were selected to study in eight Carthamus species. Phylogenetic analyses of this subset of markers reveal potential introgression and hybridization among species. In conclusion, microsatellite data, combined with sequence data, has the potential to resolve species relationships within Carthamus.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetic diversity and population structure→French-language works237,207→