<i>Roegneria alashanica</i> Keng: a species with the <b>StStSt<sup>Y</sup>St<sup>Y</sup></b> genome constitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genome constitution of tetraploid Roegneria alashanica Keng has been in question for a long time. Most scientific studies have suggested that R. alashanica had two versions of the St genome, St1St2, similar to that of Pseudoroegneria elytrigioides (C. Yen & J.L. Yang) B.R. Lu. A study, however, concluded that R. alashanica had the StY genome formula typical for tetraploid species of Roegneria. For the present study, R. alashanica, Elymus longearistatus (Bioss.) Tzvelev (StY genomes), Pseudoroegneria strigosa (M. Bieb.) Á. Löve (St), Pseudoroegneria libanoctica (Hackel) D.R. Dewey (St), and Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) Á. Löve (St) were screened for the Y-genome specific marker B14(F+R)269. All E. longearistatus plants expressed intense bands specific to the Y genome. Only 6 of 10 R. alashanica plants exhibited relatively faint bands for the STS marker. Previously, the genome in species of Pseudoroegneria exhibiting such faint Y-genome specific marker was designated as StY. Based on these results, R. alashanica lacks the Y genome in E. longearistatus but likely possess two remotely related St genomes, St and StY. According to its genome constitution, R. alashanica should be classified in the genus Pseudoroenera and given the new name Pseudoroegneria alashanica (Keng) R.R.-C. Wang and K.B. Jensen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".