MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887943260 · doi:10.1139/gen-2018-0055

Decoding ice plants: challenges associated with barcoding and phylogenetics in the diverse succulent family Aizoaceae

2018· article· en· W2887943260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robyn F. Powell, A.R. Magee, J.S. Boatwright

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNA barcodingTaxonBotanyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aizoaceae is the largest succulent plant family in the world, including in excess of 1800 species. Despite its richness, a large proportion of its taxa are listed as data deficient and as such, has been identified as the top priority for taxonomic research in South Africa. Limitations to accurate taxonomic identification of taxa in the family may be partly attributed to the degree of technical knowledge required to identify taxa in the Aizoaceae. DNA barcoding may provide an alternative method of identification; however, the suitability of commonly used gene regions has not been tested in the family. Here, we analyse variable and parsimony informative characters (PIC), as well as the barcoding gap, in commonly used plastid regions (atpB-rbcL, matK, psbA-trnH, psbJ-petA, rpl16, rps16, trnD-trnT, trnL-trnF, trnQ-rps16, and trnS-trnG) and the nuclear region ITS (for Aizooideae only) across two subfamilies and two expanded clades within the Aizoaceae. The relative percentage of PIC was much greater in subfamilies Aizooideae and Mesembryanthemoideae than in Ruschioideae. Although nrITS had the highest percentage of PIC, barcoding gap analyses identified neither ITS nor any chloroplast region as suitable for barcoding of the family. From the results, it is evident that novel barcoding regions need to be explored within the Aizoaceae.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207