A Systematic Analysis of the Alpine Saxifrage Complex (Saxifragaceae) in the Canadian Arctic Islands Using Morphology and Chloroplast DNA Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Saxifraga nivalis complex displays significant ecological, morphological and cytological variation. Most European studies suggest that the S. nivalis complex comprises two distinct species: Saxifraga nivalis sensu stricto and Saxifraga tenuis. However, the presence of intermediate morphotypes, inconsistencies in chromosomal counts and variability in morphological keys and descriptions have led to different taxonomic interpretations of the complex in North America. This study investigated the systematics of Canadian Arctic Island members of this complex from 157 specimens using 23 morphological characters. Principal component analysis of the morphological data revealed two adjacent clusters, corresponding to the two taxa and consistent with a close morphological similarity and the presence of hybrids. A preliminary restriction site analysis of five non-coding regions of the chloroplast genome, trnH-trnK, trnT-trnF, trnF-trnV, trnV-rbcL and rbcL-ORF106, was conducted using 21 restriction endonucleases. This analysis indicated a length difference between the trnT-trnF region of S. nivalis and that of S. tenuis, but no difference in restriction sites for any of the assayed regions. These results confirm that in the Canadian Arctic, the S. nivalis complex consists of two closely related, largely sympatric species, with notable morphological variability, and possible hybrids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".