MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136668140 · doi:10.1126/science.1095964

The Evolution of Modern Eukaryotic Phytoplankton

2004· review· en· W2136668140 on OpenAlexaff
Paul G. Falkowski, Miriam Katz, Andrew H. Knoll, Antonietta Quigg, John A. Raven, Oscar Schofield, F. J. R. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoplanktonEcologyEcosystemTrophic levelMarine ecosystemOceanographyBiologyMesozoicPlastidPrimary producersProterozoicPaleontologyGeologyStructural basinNutrientChloroplast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The community structure and ecological function of contemporary marine ecosystems are critically dependent on eukaryotic phytoplankton. Although numerically inferior to cyanobacteria, these organisms are responsible for the majority of the flux of organic matter to higher trophic levels and the ocean interior. Photosynthetic eukaryotes evolved more than 1.5 billion years ago in the Proterozoic oceans. However, it was not until the Mesozoic Era (251 to 65 million years ago) that the three principal phytoplankton clades that would come to dominate the modern seas rose to ecological prominence. In contrast to their pioneering predecessors, the dinoflagellates, coccolithophores, and diatoms all contain plastids derived from an ancestral red alga by secondary symbiosis. Here we examine the geological, geochemical, and biological processes that contributed to the rise of these three, distantly related, phytoplankton groups.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,587
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207