{"id":"W1986248320","doi":"10.1046/j.1529-8817.1999.00001-186.x","title":"SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF THE GENUS <i>HILDENBRANDIA</i> (RHODOPHYTA): A SYNTHESIS OF TECHNIQUES","year":2000,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Phycology","topic":"Marine and coastal plant biology","field":"Earth and Planetary Sciences","cited_by":2,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Guelph","funders":"","keywords":"Biology; Phylogenetic tree; Taxon; Genus; Taxonomy (biology); Botany; Basionym; Maximum parsimony; Evolutionary biology; Marine fungi; Zoology; Clade; Gene; Genetics","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001812641,0.000520609,0.0005807949,0.00440065,0.001020997,0.001190946,0.0007110992,0.000398698,0.000936166],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001906861,0.0002436019,0.0004400054,0.002477369,0.001047542,0.001836119,0.001522418,0.000613037,0.0004579354],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0007690305,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001929977,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003475049,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00585945,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9987644,0.0003906309,0.0002401346,0.0003087573,0.0002107427,0.00008536221],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.998826,0.000261299,0.0003437882,0.0001605012,0.0002969949,0.0001115225],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"systematic_review","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002681106,0.0001031888,0.1119635,0.004304935,0.0001678028,0.000645137,0.005142774,0.0005520318,0.1754457,0.003494163,0.0008933701,0.6970193],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0000325808,0.001285481,0.739027,0.002960973,0.0003514849,0.003727333,0.007554543,0.003529424,0.04059011,0.002970794,0.1978018,0.0001686006],"study_design_candidate":"systematic_review","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.6672811,0.2063995,0.09653153,0.001561742,0.0003954227,0.001702421,0.001375315,0.0005586177,0.02419444],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6680149,0.059527,0.2644321,0.0006374671,0.0002042075,0.0007164194,0.002496382,0.0001017987,0.003869753],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.00440065,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.009586275,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.01314589990279,"score_gpt":0.2237619358286385,"score_spread":0.2106160359258485,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}