An update to the Canadian range, abundance, and ploidy of <i>Camelina</i> spp. (Brassicaceae) east of the Rocky Mountains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution and abundance of three Camelina species introduced to Canada is unknown, but critical for evaluating the risks associated with unconfined release of transgenic Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz (2n = 40). Furthermore, previous reports suggest Canadian populations of Camelina microcarpa Andrz. ex DC. vary for ploidy and ability to hybridize with C. sativa. We completed 8 weeks of field work in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, southern Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes. We determined the ploidy composition of the populations found. We did not locate Camelina alyssum (Mill.) Thell., but located four sites with C. sativa and 34 with C. microcarpa. Eleven C. microcarpa populations were tetraploid (2n = 26, 1.00pg/2C) and 22 were hexaploid (2n = 40, 1.50pg/2C), while two populations were mixed. We examined material from botanical gardens and plant gene resource centres assessing total nuclear DNA content and completing chromosome counts for each species and cytotype identified, to determine whether tetraploid and hexaploid C. microcarpa were included in these collections. No tetraploid material was included in the C. microcarpa accessions received; however, a diploid (2n = 12, 0.54pg/2C) was found. Given the current geographic ranges, abundance, and chromosome counts of these species, the greatest risk of hybridization with transgenic C. sativa is from hexaploid C. microcarpa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".