MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COEVOLUTION BETWEEN LAMELLODISCUS (MONOGENEA: DIPLECTANIDAE) AND SPARIDAE (TELEOSTEI): THE STUDY OF A COMPLEX HOST-PARASITE SYSTEM

2002· article· en· W2050007911 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Desdevises, Sergé Morand, Olivier Jousson, Pierre Legendre

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsMonogeneaBiologySparidaeTeleosteiParasite hostingHost (biology)CoevolutionPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsZoologyMitochondrial DNACytochrome bEcologyGeneticsFish <Actinopterygii>GeneFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host-parasite coevolution was studied between Sparidae (Teleostei) fishes and their parasites of the genus Lamellodiscus (Monogenea, Diplectanidae) in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Molecular phylogenies were reconstructed for both groups. The phylogenctic tree of the Sparidae was obtained from previously published 16S mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences associated with new cytochrome-b mtDNA sequences via a "total evidence" procedure. The phylogeny of Lamellodiscus species was reconstructed from 18S rDNA sequences that we obtained. Host-parasite coevolution was studied through different methods: TreeFitter, TreeMap, and a new method, ParaFit. If the cost of a host switch is not assumed to be high for parasites, all methods agree on the absence of widespread cospeciation processes in this host-parasite system. Host-parasite associations were interpreted to be due more to ecological factors than to coevolutionary processes. Host specificity appeared not to be related to host-parasite cospeciation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations122
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207