Phylogenetic systematic assessment of the Aspidobothrea (Platyhelminthes, Neodermata, Trematoda)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic systematic analysis of 20 aspidobothrean taxa using 33 transformation series based in comparative morphology yields three most parsimonious trees with a consistency index of 62%. The trees agree with familial‐level relationships of (Rugogastridae (Stichocotylidae (Multicalycidae + Aspidogastridae))) supported by previous phylogenetic systematic assessments, which were based on only 10 transformation series. The analysis does not support completely the current subfamilial classification of the Aspidogastridae: both the Aspidobothriinae [as ( Aspidogaster + Lobatostoma )] and the Cotylaspinae [as Cotylogasteroides + Cotylogaster basiri (( Cotylaspis + Lissemysia ) ( Rohdella ( Lophotaspis ( Multicotyle + Sychnocotyle )))))] are supported as monophyletic groups. Recognizing Rohdellinae, however, would make the Cotylaspinae paraphyletic. The trees support a basal trichotomy of Cotylogaster michaelis + Aspidobothriinae + Cotylaspinae. Within the Aspidogastrinae, Aspidogaster conchicola , type species of the genus, is the sister group of all other species currently placed in the genus + Lobatosoma spp., rendering Aspidogaster paraphyletic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it