MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793330290 · doi:10.17221/6154-cjgpb

Molecular diversity of Elymus trachycaulus complex species and their relationships to other Elymus species

2005· article· en· W2793330290 on OpenAlexaff
Guangyu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCzech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElymusBiologyDiversity (politics)BotanySpecies diversityEcologyPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elymus trachycaulus complex species are known for their morphological variability, but little is known about the genetic basis of this variability. The delimitation of taxa within the complex has been controversial and difficult. Elymus trachycaulus is predominantly self-pollinating, and lacks clear morphological boundaries between it and E. alaskanus. Another controversial taxonomic issue of E. trachycaulus is the relationships of this complex species to non-North America E. caninus. The phylogenetic relationships among the E. trachycaulus complex, and their systematic relation to other Elymus species remain unknown. Genetic diversity of E. trachycaulus complex and the systematic relationships among the E. trachycaulus complex species, and their relationships with E. caninus, E. alaskanus and E. mutabilis was studied using random amplified polymorphic DNA method. The phylogenetic relationships among the E. trachycaulus complex, and their systematic relation to other Elymus species were characterized using rbcL and ITS sequences. The results indicated that higher genetic variation was detected within E. trachycaulus complex species. Eurasian accessions are as variable as the North American ones. The RAPD data support the treatment of E. caninus and E. trachycaulus as distinct taxa. Elymus trachycaulus complex are more related to each other than to other Elymus species.

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 score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCzech Journal of Genetics and Plant BreedingSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207