MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1836200156 · doi:10.1639/0007-2745.115.1.23

Climacium (Climaciaceae): species relationships and biogeographic implications

2012· article· en· W1836200156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Jonathan Shaw, Blanka Shaw, Masanobu Higuchi, Tomotsugu Arikawa, Yumiko Hirayama, Nicolas Devos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bryologist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDisjunctMonophylyDisjunct distributionBiologyLineage (genetic)GenusSister groupCladePhylogenetic treeEcologyZoologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climacium is a small but morphologically distinctive genus (“tree mosses”) with four species distributed primarily in the Northern Hemisphere. Climacium dendroides occurs around the globe at northern latitudes with disjunct populations in Mexico and New Zealand, whereas C. americanum and C. kindbergii are endemic to eastern North America and C. japonicum is limited to eastern Asia. Using nucleotide sequence data from five plastid loci plus the nuclear ribosomal ITS region we assessed evidence for monophyly of taxonomic species and tested the hypothesis that C. americanum and C. kindbergii from eastern North America have a sister group relationship with C. japonicum from eastern Asia. Climacium japonicum is resolved as sister to a clade containing the circumboreal C. dendroides, C. americanum, and C. kindbergii. Climacium americanum and C. kindbergii were not resolved as monophyletic based on sequence data but together they composed the sister lineage to C. dendroides. Geographically disjunct populations of C. dendroides in Asia, Mexico, the United States, and Canada vary at only a few polymorphic nucleotide sites across the three loci. The disjunctive New Zealand plants of C. dendroides are related to Asian accessions.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BryologistSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207