MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DNA barcoding of marine crustaceans from the Estuary and Gulf of St Lawrence: a regional‐scale approach

2009· article· en· W2129814608 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Resources · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA barcodingBiologyCrustaceanEstuarySpecies complexIntraspecific competitionGenetic divergenceEcologyBarcodeAmphipodaTaxonomy (biology)ZoologyGenetic diversityPhylogenetic treeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine crustaceans are known as a group with a high level of morphological and ecological diversity but are difficult to identify by traditional approaches and usually require the help of highly trained taxonomists. A faster identification method, DNA barcoding, was found to be an effective tool for species identification in many metazoan groups including some crustaceans. Here we expand the DNA barcode database with a case study involving 80 malacostracan species from the Estuary and Gulf of St Lawrence. DNA sequences for 460 specimens grouped into clusters corresponding to known morphological species in 95% of cases. Genetic distances between species were on average 25 times higher than within species. Intraspecific divergence was high (3.78-13.6%) in specimens belonging to four morphological species, suggesting the occurrence of cryptic species. Moreover, we detected the presence of an invasive amphipod species in the St Lawrence Estuary. This study reconfirms the usefulness of DNA barcoding for the identification of marine crustaceans.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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