MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phylogenetic relationships and remarkable radiation in Parartemia (Crustacea: Anostraca), the endemic brine shrimp of Australia: evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequences

2001· article· en· W1988685202 on OpenAlexaff
Elpidio A. Remigio, Paul D. N. Hebert, Alan Savage

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAnostracaPhylogenetic treePhylogeneticsShrimpBrine shrimpEcologyZoologyEvolutionary biologyGenusMitochondrial DNACrustaceanBranchiopodaGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Australian continent is notable for the faunal radiations which have occurred in its saline inland waters. The endemic brine shrimp genus Parartemia inhabits many of these habitats. The complex pattern of morphological variation in parartemiids has impeded the establishment of a sound scheme of species relationships. The present study provides an explicit hypothesis of relationships for the genus based on nucleotide sequence data from a segment of mitochondrial DNA coding for the large subunit rRNA gene. Phylogenetic analyses indicated that the eight known species are genetically distinct, and revealed the existence of at least two new species. The molecular data support certain morphology-based relationships among species, but are inconsistent with other hypotheses. There is evidence that most members of the genus arose in a short interval, followed by remarkable genetic divergence. Comparisons of levels of mt DNA sequence divergence between lineages from saline inland waters and freshwaters using representative crustacean groups from Australia that included parartemiids indicated profound differences in rates of evolution, with halophiles exhibiting greater rates of change than their counterparts from freshwaters.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations42
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207