MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085525886 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0025

Barcoding animal life: cytochrome <i>c</i> oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species

2003· article· en· W2085525886 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul D. N. Hebert, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Jeremy R. de Waard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDNA barcodingBiologyMitochondrial DNACytochrome c oxidase subunit IEvolutionary biologyIntraspecific competitionCytochrome c oxidaseCladePhylumTaxonomy (biology)ZoologyPhylogeneticsGeneGeneticsMitochondrion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With millions of species and their life-stage transformations, the animal kingdom provides a challenging target for taxonomy. Recent work has suggested that a DNA-based identification system, founded on the mitochondrial gene, cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI), can aid the resolution of this diversity. While past work has validated the ability of COI sequences to diagnose species in certain taxonomic groups, the present study extends these analyses across the animal kingdom. The results indicate that sequence divergences at COI regularly enable the discrimination of closely allied species in all animal phyla except the Cnidaria. This success in species diagnosis reflects both the high rates of sequence change at COI in most animal groups and constraints on intraspecific mitochondrial DNA divergence arising, at least in part, through selective sweeps mediated via interactions with the nuclear genome.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.221
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations4,467
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207