MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238266592 · doi:10.1139/x00-085

Improved AFLP analysis of tree species

2000· article· en· W4238266592 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Cervera, David L. Remington, J.-M. Frigerio, Véronique Storme, B. Ivens, Wout Boerjan, Christophe Plomion

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionVlaamse regeringTeagascU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsAmplified fragment length polymorphismGymnospermBiologyPrunusGenomeBotanyPinus <genus>Phylogenetic treeMolecular markerGenome sizeGeneticsGenetic diversityGenePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) is a high-throughput, molecular-marker technique that is used increasingly in a variety of genetic analyses. Here, the conditions for carrying out AFLP analysis have been established for different tree species, including both angiosperm and gymnosperm trees, with genome sizes ranging from 0.54 to 38 pg DNA/2C. Specific parameters have been determined to provide informative and reproducible AFLP fingerprints of peach (Prunus persica L.), eucalypt, oak, poplar, and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Typically, 80-130 amplified DNA fragments (i.e., loci analyzed per primer combination) were obtained. Subsequently, these AFLP conditions were evaluated for intra- and inter-specific genetic variability studies as well as for genome mapping purposes of woody species. This work demonstrates that AFLP is a powerful tool in forest tree genetics.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207