Phylogenetic systematic assessment of the Aspidobothrea (Platyhelminthes, Neodermata, Trematoda)
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".