Algae lacking carbon-concentrating mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the algae and cyanobacteria that have been critically examined express a carbon-concentrating mechanism (CCM) when grown at, or below, the current atmospheric CO 2 concentration. This paper considers algae that appear to lack a CCM. Critical examination of the evidence on which the presence or absence of a CCM is decided shows that more information is frequently needed before the criteria can be fully applied. Examples are the pathways of glycolate metabolism in nongreen algae, and the 13 C/ 12 C discrimination shown by form ID Rubisco in vitro. The available evidence suggests that the algae lacking CCMs are some terrestrial green microalgae, some florideophyte freshwater red macroalgae, and a number of florideophyte red macroalgae from the supralittoral, littoral, and sublittoral, and almost all of the freshwater chrysophytes and synurophytes examined. Certain environmental, biochemical, and biophysical factors may permit the occurrence of algae lacking CCMs. The absence of CCMs is presumably the plesiomorphic (i.e., ancestral) condition in cyanobacteria (and algae?).Key words: CO 2 diffusion, chrysophyte algae, ecology, evolution, green algae, photosynthesis, red algae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".