A REEXAMINATION OF THE SYSTEMATICS OF THE ACROCHAETIALES (RHODOPHYTA) USING LARGE‐SUBUNIT RDNA SEQUENCE DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The taxonomic history of the red algal order Acrochaetiales is chaotic. There is no consensus in the literature as to how many genera should be recognized or in the assignment of the over 400 species to these genera. Morphological and anatomical studies have provided a suite of possible characters to delineate genera within this order, but there have been major discrepancies in the assessment and use of these features. The phylogenetic placement of the Acrochaetiales has also been the focus of debate. Once thought to be the most ancestral florideophyte lineage, recent molecular systematic studies have illustrated that this order is a derived lineage closely related to the Nemaliales and Palmariales. Phylogenies using sequences of the small‐subunit (SSU) rDNA have strongly supported two very divergent lineages within a possibly polyphyletic Acrochaetiales. The relationships between these two groups and among other closely related rhodophyte orders were not resolved. We have generated large‐subunit (LSU) rDNA sequence data for representatives of the Acrochaetiales and related taxa. Distance and parsimony phylogenies based on LSU and combined SSU and LSU data will be presented. The increased phylogenetic signal afforded by this approach will shed light on previous conundrums in the systematics of this group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".