MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078379917 · doi:10.1139/z04-041

Biological identification of springtails (Hexapoda: Collembola) from the Canadian Arctic, using mitochondrial DNA barcodes

2004· article· en· W2078379917 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ian D. Hogg, Paul D. N. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCollembola Taxonomy and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNA barcodingTaxonomy (biology)Mitochondrial DNAArcticSpringtailEcologyGenusZoologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated sequence diversity in the mitochondrial cytochrome-c oxidase I (COI; EC 1.9.3.1) gene as a tool for resolving differences among species of Arctic springtails. The Collembola examined in this analysis were collected from Igloolik, Cornwallis, and Somerset islands and included representatives from all major families found in the Arctic. Members of 13 genera and 19 species were examined, including 4 species of the genus Folsomia and 3 species of the genus Hypogastrura. In all cases, species were successfully discriminated. Sequence divergences within species were generally less than 1%, whereas divergences between species were greater than 8% in all cases. Divergences among individuals of one species of Folsomia were much higher (up to 13%), but this likely represents the presence of an undescribed sibling species. We conclude that DNA barcoding is a powerful tool for identifying species of Collembola and should regularly be useful as a complement to traditional, morphological taxonomy.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations268
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicCollembola Taxonomy and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207