MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380563850 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2023-0011

Phylogeography of alpine plant <i>Parnassia wightiana</i> (Celastraceae)

2023· article· en· W4380563850 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaosong Dai, Shuang Tian, Wei Wu, Bo Yang, Yifan Ma, Gang Ge, Ding Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiologyPhylogeographyChloroplast DNAAnalysis of molecular varianceAlpine plantAllopatric speciationGenetic structureIsolation by distanceEvolutionary biologyBotanyEcologyPopulationPhylogeneticsGenetic variationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parnassia wightiana Wall. ex Wight &amp; Arn., a perennial herb, is an alpine plant distributed across three biodiversity hotspots in China. This species offers an excellent study system to analyze the distribution pattern and genetic structure of high mountainous plant populations. Three chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) regions ( rpl32- t rnL, trnL-F, and trnS-G) from 442 individuals of 39 populations and internal transcribed spacers (ITS) from 418 individuals of 38 populations were sequenced and analyzed. We identified a total of 26 haplotypes based on the concatenated sequences of cpDNA and a total of 36 based on ITS sequences. A hierarchical analysis of molecular variance indicated significant phylogeographic structure among populations. Mismatch analysis of multipeak and Tajima’s D neutral test demonstrated Parnassia wightiana populations within China had not experienced abrupt expansion recently. The allopatric fragmentation resulted in the geographic isolation due to environmental heterogeneity, producing a high proportion of private haplotypes in the distribution of Parnassia wightiana within China.

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 score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207