MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144642827 · doi:10.1139/b06-143

<i>Eunotia</i>spp. (Bacillariophyceae) from Middle Eocene lake sediments and comments on the origin of the diatom raphe

2007· article· en· W2144642827 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Peter A. Siver, Alexander P. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRapheDiatomGeologyPaleontologyGenusBiologyBotanyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freshwater diatoms belonging to the genus Eunotia Ehrenberg 1837 are well preserved in Middle Eocene lake sediments from the Northwest Territories, Canada. Although two distinct valve morphologies are recognized, both have features that are entirely compatible with modern congeneric taxa, including dorsiventral valve morphology, striae spanning the valve face and extending onto the mantle, raphe structures on the mantle that extend distally onto the valve face, two helictoglossae per valve, and one apical rimoportula per valve. These findings establish that the genus Eunotia, and likely freshwater raphid diatoms as a whole, are more ancient than previously believed, dating back to at least 40 Ma. One of the observed morphotypes has a raphe spanning more than 80% of the valve length as well as a narrow hyaline area extending between proximal raphe endings and interrupting mantle striae. These features imply that the raphe system among certain ancient representatives of Eunotia was more developed relative to modern counterparts. The notion of progressive degeneration of the raphe within Eunotia is supported by several extant species. Collectively, these observations confirm molecular phylogenetic arguments that position Eunotia as a basal raphid diatom.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207