MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RESOLVING EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE BROWN ALGAE USING CHLOROPLAST AND NUCLEAR GENES<sup>1</sup>

2008· article· en· W2044536958 on OpenAlexaff
Naomi Phillips, Renaud Burrowes, Florence Rousseau, Bruno de Reviers, Gary W. Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFucalesPhylogenetic treeBrown algaeTaxonCladeSister groupPhylogeneticsAlgaeContext (archaeology)Evolutionary biologyNuclear geneEcologyGenomeGeneGeneticsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brown algae are one of the largest and most important groups of primary producers in benthic coastal marine environments. Despite their biological importance, consensus regarding their taxonomic or evolutionary relationships remains elusive. Our goal was to produce a taxon-rich two-gene (rbcL and LSU rDNA) phylogeny. Key species were sequenced to represent each order and family in the analyses across all 19 orders and ∼40 families, including selected outgroups Schizocladiophyceae and Xanthophyceae. Our results are in sharp contrast to traditional phylogenetic concepts; the Ectocarpales are not an early diverging clade, nor do the Fucales diverge early from other brown algae. Rather, Choristocarpus is sister to the remaining brown algae. Other groups traditionally considered to have primitive features are actually recently diverged lineages, turning traditional phylogenetic concepts upside down. Additionally, our results allow for the assessment, in the broadest context, of many of the historical and more recent taxonomic changes, resulting in several emended groups along with proposals for two new orders (Onslowiales, Nemodermatales) and one new family (Phaeosiphoniellaceae).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations63
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207