MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795938736 · doi:10.3398/064.078.0109

Molecular Detection of Northern Leatherside Chub (Lepidomeda copei) DNA in Environmental Samples

2018· article· en· W2795938736 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph C. Dysthe, Kellie J. Carim, Thomas W. Franklin, D. A. Kikkert, Michael K. Young, Kevin S. McKelvey, Michael K. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern North American Naturalist · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSympatric speciationEnvironmental DNABiologySympatryPopulationEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>ZoologyFisheryBiodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda copei) is a cyprinid fish native to the Snake River, Green River, and Bonneville basins of the western United States. Population declines prompted the development of a multistate conservation agreement and strategy, which emphasized the need to reliably delineate its current distribution and monitor its status. To facilitate species monitoring, we developed a quantitative PCR assay to detect northern leatherside chub DNA in environmental samples. The assay consistently detected northern leatherside chub DNA in concentrations as low as 2 copies per reaction and did not amplify DNA of potentially sympatric fish species. The assay amplified a synthetic DNA template representing 3 congeneric species: White River spinedace (L. albivallis), Virgin spinedace, (L. mollispinis mollispinis), and Big Spring spinedace, (L. m. pratensis); however, none of these are sympatric with northern leatherside chub. Field tests of the assay accurately reproduced expected patterns of species occupancy.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern North American NaturalistSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207