MOLECULAR SYSTEMATICS OF THE FLORIDEOPHYCEAE (RHODOPHYTA) USING NUCLEAR LARGE AND SMALL SUBUNIT rDNA SEQUENCE DATA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequence data are presented for approximately 85% of the nuclear large subunit (LSU) rDNA gene for one member of the Bangiophyceae and 47 members of the Florideophyceae, the latter representing all but one of the currently recognized florideophyte orders. Distance, parsimony, and maximum likelihood analyses of these data were used to generate phylogenetic trees, and bootstrap resampling was implemented to infer robustness for distance and parsimony results. LSU phylogenies were congruent with published nuclear small subunit (SSU) rDNA results in that four higher level florideophyte lineages were resolved: lineage 1, containing the order Hildenbrandiales; lineage 2, recovered only under distance analysis, composed of the orders Acrochaetiales, Balliales, Batrachospermales, Corallinales, Nemaliales, Palmariales, and Rhodogorgonales; lineage 3, containing the Ahnfeltiales; and lineage 4, composed of the orders Bonnemaisoniales, Ceramiales, Gelidiales, Gigartinales, Gracilariales, Halymeniales, Plocamiales, and Rhodymeniales. Analyses were also performed on a combined LSU–SSU data set and an SSU‐only data set to account for differences in taxon sampling relative to published studies using this latter gene. Combined LSU–SSU analyses resulted in phylogenetic trees of similar topology and support to those obtained from LSU‐only analyses. Phylogenetic trees produced from SSU‐only analyses differed somewhat in particulars of branching within lineages 2 and 4 but overall were congruent with the LSU‐only and combined LSU–SSU results. We close with a discussion of the phylogenetic potential that the LSU has displayed thus far for resolving relationships within the Florideophyceae.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it