MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953158522 · doi:10.1002/aps3.1203

Microsatellite primer development for the invasive perennial herb <i>Gypsophila paniculata</i> (Caryophyllaceae)

2018· article· en· W2953158522 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hailee Leimbach-Maus, Syndell R. Parks, Charlyn Partridge

Bibliographic record

VenueApplications in Plant Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrand Valley State University
KeywordsBiologyMicrosatelliteCaryophyllaceaeGenetic diversityGenetic structureGeneticsBotanyGenetic variationPopulationAlleleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Premise of the Study Gypsophila paniculata (baby's breath; Caryophyllaceae) is a herbaceous perennial that has invaded much of northern and western United States and Canada, outcompeting and crowding out native and endemic species. Microsatellite primers were developed to analyze the genetic structure of invasive populations. Methods and Results We identified 16 polymorphic nuclear microsatellite loci for G. paniculata out of 73 loci that successfully amplified from a primer library created using Illumina sequencing technology. Microsatellite primers were developed to amplify di‐, tri‐, and tetranucleotide repeats and tested in three invasive populations in Michigan. Conclusions These markers will be useful in characterizing the genetic structure of invasive populations throughout North America to aid targeted management efforts, and in native Eurasian populations to better understand invasion history. Five of these developed primers also amplified in G. elegans .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplications in Plant SciencesSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207