MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983233201 · doi:10.1139/z00-039

Inferring a classification of the Adenophorea (Nematoda) from nucleotide sequences of the D3 expansion segment (26/28S rDNA)

2000· article· en· W1983233201 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marianne K. Litvaitis, Jeffrey W. Bates, Wayne Hope, Tom Moens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParaphylyMonophylyBiologySensuLineage (genetic)Maximum parsimonyEvolutionary biologyZoologyPhylogeneticsCladeGeneticsGenusGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nucleotide sequences of the D3 expansion segment of the 28S rDNA gene were used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships within the Adenophorea. Neighbor-joining and parsimony analyses of representatives of most major taxa revealed a paraphyletic Adenophorea (p = 0.0005). Within Adenophorea, the Enoplia, Enoplida, and Enoplina were paraphyletic (p = 0.0024, 0.0014, and 0.0120, respectively). A major division was evident within the Enoplida, with one lineage consisting of a basal Thoracostomopsidae and Enoplidae, and a second lineage consisting of Oncholaimidae and Encheliididae. Tripyloidina clustered close to the basal enoplid branch and formed a monophyletic taxon. Although appearing as paraphyletic in the maximum-parsimony and neighbor-joining trees, constraining Chromadoria and Chromadorida into monophyletic groups did not result in a longer tree. Within the Chromadoria, the order Desmodorida sensu Malakhov (1994) was paraphyletic. However, Desmodorida sensu Lorenzen (1994), which does not include Ceramonematidae, was monophyletic. Monhysterida formed a monophyletic order within Chromadoria, equivalent to Chromadorida and Desmodorida. The position of the Comesomatidae was tentatively identified among the Chromadorida, however, the possibility of their placement among the Monhysterida cannot be excluded completely.

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 score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations40
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207