MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconciling Cladistic and Genetic Analyses in Choreotrichid Ciliates (Ciliophora, Spirotricha, Oligotrichea)

2012· article· en· W1964932959 on OpenAlexaff
Sabine Agatha, Michaela C. Strüder‐Kypke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyReticulateCiliataGenusTaxonomy (biology)CladisticsZoologyTaxonAnatomyPhylogeneticsProtozoaBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifty-six features of halteriid, oligotrichid, and choreotrichid ciliates are cladistically analysed, including an updated hypothesis about the evolution of the somatic ciliary patterns. Based on its morphology, Lynnella clusters with Parastrombidinopsis, Parastrombidium, and Strombidinopsis, while it is basal to the other choreotrichids in the molecular phylogenies. The two clusters of Favella species in small subunit rRNA gene trees are supported by morphological features, justifying a separation at genus and family level. The genus Favella has a smooth lorica surface and a somatic ciliary pattern comprising a left and lateral ciliary field as well as two dorsal kineties and a monokinetidal ventral kinety abutting on the right ciliary field. The new genus Schmidingerella n. gen., established for the second Favella cluster, groups with Metacylis and Rhabdonella in the molecular trees. It differs from Favella in (i) a lorica wall with reticulate surface ridges and minute openings and (ii) a ventral kinety that is distinctly apart from the right ciliary field and composed of a monokinetidal anterior and a dikinetidal posterior portion. The genera Codonaria, Codonella, and Codonellopsis are affiliated with the family Dictyocystidae, whose diagnosis is improved to include the lorica sac.

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 score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations61
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eukaryotic MicrobiologySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207