MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095269117 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v3n1p3

Phylogenetic Diversity of the Cold Water Octocoral Paragorgia arborea (Linnaeus, 1758) off the East Coast of Canada

2010· article· en· W2095269117 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kevin B. Strychar, Ellen Kenchington, Lorraine C. Hamilton, David B. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersKillam Trusts
KeywordsGorgonianRange (aeronautics)CoralBiologyEcologyPhylogenetic treeGenusGenetic divergenceGenetic diversity18S ribosomal RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commonly called “bubblegum coral’, Paragorgia is a genus of cold-water gorgonian coral that has a broad global distribution and is eurybathic from depths of meters to kilometers. Such ecological breadth, however, may be confounded by the presence of cryptic species. In this study we compare the genetic distances of various Paragorgia spp. across their distribution and depth range along the Canadian mid-Atlantic margin using 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Morphometric and 18S evidence show that although appearing similar, only one species of cold-water Paragorgia, called P. arborea, predominates in this region. However, 18S evidence from corals collected at deep depths located at one site, called the Stone Fence, indicate that a significant amount of divergence exists and other species may also be present. Such new light provides a need for further genetic testing using alternative methods (e.g. microsatellites), which could reveal new lineages that may have considerable ecological and/or taxonomic importance.

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)0.000
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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207