Molecular diversity of Elymus trachycaulus complex species and their relationships to other Elymus species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".