MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069131337 · doi:10.1139/z06-005

Phylogeny and evolution of calcareous sponges

2006· article· en· W2069131337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michaël Manuel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynapomorphyBiologyPhylogeneticsMonophylyCladisticsEvolutionary biologyMolecular phylogeneticsPhylogenetic treeCladeCladogramTaxonomy (biology)ZoologySystematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most recent advances concerning the phylogeny and evolution of calcareous sponges (Calcarea or Calcispongia) are reviewed here, in the light of the history of taxonomy of the group and conceptions about its evolution, starting from Haeckel's works at the end of the 19th century. Calcisponge phylogeny has recently started to be addressed using modern tools of phylogenetic reconstruction: cladistic analysis of morphological characters and molecular phylogeny (so far using 18S and 28S rDNA sequences). The monophyly of calcareous sponges is strongly supported in these works, as is their subdivision into two clades, Calcinea (whose proposed synapomorphy is the basal position of nuclei in choanocytes, with no relation to the flagella) and Calcaronea (whose possible synapomorphy is the formation of the amphiblastula larva through the original process of eversion of the stomoblastula). While the molecular phylogeny of Calcinea is still in its infancy because of insufficient taxonomic sampling, several lines are emerging for the phylogeny of Calcaronea, and these are in strong disagreement with the classification issued from the "traditional" morphological approach. Phylogenetic hypotheses also permit the reconstruction of morphological character evolution, which appears complex and subject to a high level of homoplasy.

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 score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.188
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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207