MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6922050020 · doi:10.1043/06-64.1

Multiple Nuclear Loci Reveal the Distinctiveness of the Threatened, Neotropical Pinus Chiapensis

2007· article· en· W6922050020 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisjunctMonophylyAlleleCladeCoalescent theoryHaplotypeGenusOptimal distinctiveness theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pinus chiapensis is a threatened species of pine from southern Mexico and Guatemala. It was first described as a disjunct variety of P. strobus from the eastern United States and Canada. Subsequent morphological work indicates that P. chiapensis is a distinct species, but this interpretation is controversial. To explore the distinctiveness of this taxon, we sequenced three low-copy, unlinked nuclear loci in multiple accessions of P. chiapensis and its three most probable progenitors (P. ayacahuite, P. monticola, and P. strobus). Pinus chiapensis had the lowest combined nucleotide diversity of the four species (0.0031), and had only a single allele rangewide at one locus. Pinus chiapensis does not share alleles with any of the possible progenitors and all of its alleles are monophyletic at two of the three loci. At the third locus, allelic nonmonophyly is statistically indistinguishable from monophyly. While our results show that P. chiapensis is at least as distinct as the remaining three widely accepted species, determination of the most recent common ancestor is complicated by lack of allelic monophyly within potential progenitors and interlocus variability. Based on our sample of individuals and loci, P. ayacahuite appears to be the least likely progenitor, but there is no clear resolution of whether P. chiapensis is more closely related to P. monticola or P. strobus.

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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.092 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207