MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296916975 · doi:10.1139/as-2021-0029

Genetic structure of extant populations of <i>Chrysanthemum arcticum</i> L. and <i>C. arcticum</i> subsp. <i>arcticum</i>

2022· article· en· W4296916975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Y. Liu, Neil O. Anderson, Andrzej K. Noyszewski

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsSubspeciesBiologyPopulationZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the genetic diversity in natural plant populations is important to develop conservation strategies and utilize valuable germplasm resources. Chrysanthemum arcticum L., Arctic daisy (= Arctanthemum arcticum; = Dendranthema arcticum), and its two subspecies ( C. arcticum L. subsp. arcticum and C. arcticum L. subsp. polaré Hultén) are the only Chrysanthemum species native to North America. We collected 529 individuals in nine C. arcticum and 21 C. arcticum subsp. arcticum populations from the state of Alaska mainland and Attu Island (the westernmost Aleutian Island). Evidence of declining population sizes and decreasing ranges of distribution were detected for both species and subspecies. Population genetic diversity was analyzed using 7449 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers developed using low-density DArTseq technology. Three distinct genetic clusters within C. arcticum populations were detected by STRUCTURE v.2.3.4, principal coordinate analysis, discriminant analysis of principal components, unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean and SplitsTree. SNP data showed a clear taxonomic distinction among C. arcticum and C. arcticum subsp. arcticum. However, within C. arcticum subsp. arcticum populations, two subgroups occurred in the genetic cluster analyses that were a mixture of individuals from different populations, which may be the result of gene flow.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207