MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032027191 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v6n1p82

Phylogenetic Position of Xenoturbella bocki and Hemichordates Balanoglossus carnosus and Saccoglossus kowalevskii Based on Amino Acid Composition or Nucleotide Content of Complete Mitochondrial Genomes

2013· article· en· W2032027191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenji Sorimachi, Teiji Okayasu, Yoshifumi Ebara, Emiko Furuta, Shuji Ohhira

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeInvertebrateVertebrateGenomeMitochondrial DNAGeneticsGenePhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To clarify the phylogenetic position of Xenoturbella bocki and hemichordates (Balanoglossus carnosus and Saccoglossus kowalevskii), which occupy an ambiguous evolutionary position between vertebrates and invertebrates, we expanded a pre-existing baseline vertebrate data set by incorporating randomly selected invertebrates. Based on nucleotide content calculated from complete mitochondrial genomes, invertebrates were classified into two groups, high C/G and low C/G, with vertebrates placed within the high-C/G invertebrate group. X. bocki and hemichordates (B. carnosus and S. kowalevskii) also fell into the high-C/G invertebrate group. We also analyzed amino acid composition and nucleotide content of complete mitochondrial genomes or 16S rRNA genes using Ward’s clustering method and neighbor-joining. In the resulting phylogenetic trees, invertebrates are classified into high C/G and low C/G categories, and vertebrates are divided into terrestrial and aquatic groups. In addition, X. bocki and representative hemichordates B. carnosus and S. kowalevskii appear to be more closely related to vertebrates than to invertebrates.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207