MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014648452 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3914.2.8

Unexpected occurrence of Hemifridericia bivesiculata Christensen & Dózsa-Farkas, 2006 in Hungary, a species presumed to be endemic to Devon Island, Canada, and its comparative analysis with H. parva Nielsen & Christensen, 1959 (Enchytraeidae, Oligochaeta)

2015· article· en· W2014648452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Klára Dózsa‐Farkas, Tamás Felföldi

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInvertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaHungarian Scientific Research Fund
KeywordsBiologyArchipelagoFaunaGeneralist and specialist speciesCytochrome c oxidase subunit IEcologyZoologyMitochondrial DNAGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the exploration of the enchytraeid fauna in forests and grasslands of Hungarian flat areas, a small enchytraeid species, Hemifridericia bivesiculata Christensen & Dózsa-Farkas, 2006, was found unexpectedly. This species was known previously only from one single location, Bank Island in the Canadian archipelago, and was presumed to be endemic. Here, the distinctive features of the two Hemifridericia species are described based on detailed morphological analyses, which were supported with molecular methods. The results demonstrated that the two Hemifridericia species are very similar morphologically, but can be clearly distinguished from each other by the presence or absence of the oesophageal vesicles and the shape of the brain. Some additional differences were observed between the Hungarian material and the type specimens of H. bivesiculata. The two species were unequivocally separated based on the studied molecular markers, the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (CO1) gene, the nuclear histon 3 (H3) gene and the nuclear ribosomal ITS region.

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 score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyFrench-language works237,207