Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do terrestrial micro-organisms evolve morphologically? A recent concept suggests that morphological stasis over dozens of millions of years has persisted in microbial lineages. However, it is based on a weak fossil record. Indeed, it is already difficult to define a species with extant microbes, and this task is even harder when dealing with fossil micro-organisms. Based on research on fossils in amber, we highlighted the different problems that are raised when describing a new fossil species of micro-organisms and we discuss the concept of morphological stasis. Les micro-organismes terrestres évoluent-ils morphologiquement ? Un concept récent suggère que des stases morphologiques (plusieurs dizaines de millions d’années) existent chez différents groupes de micro-organismes. Cependant, il est basé sur un registre fossile très critiquable. En effet, il est difficile de définir une espèce à partir de micro-organismes actuels, et cette tâche devient encore plus ardue, lorsqu’il s’agit de micro-organismes fossiles. Grâce aux recherches sur l’ambre, nous avons souligné les différents problèmes qui surviennent lors de la description d’une nouvelle espèce de micro-organismes fossiles et nous avons discuté le concept de stase morphologique.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".