MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145210731 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v119i3.152

<em>Cyclopyxis acmodonta</em> n. sp. and <em>Arcella formosa</em> n. sp.: Two New Species of Testate Rhizopods (Arcellinida, Protozoa) from Remnant Wetlands in Ontario, Canada

2005· article· en· W2145210731 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kenneth H. Nicholls

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTyphaMarshBiologyEcologyTaxonomy (biology)HabitatTestate amoebaeBotanyWetlandPeat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species of the testate rhizopod genera Arcella and Cyclopyxis are found predominantly in the benthos of shallow ponds, forest pools, marshes and other freshwater habitats. Their taxonomy is based on the morphology of their tests — the shell-like structure that houses the living single-celled amoeboid protoplast. This paper describes a new species of Cyclopyxis discovered in two coniferous forest bogs, and a new species of Arcella from a Typha-dominated marsh on the north shore of Lake Ontario, Canada. Cyclopyxis acmodonta Nicholls n. sp. differs from its closest relative C. stellata (Wailes) Deflandre 1929 in its much smaller size and its irregularly shaped pseudostomal aperture, which is embellished with numerous, tiny, sharp-pointed toothlike quartz granules around the interior margin. Although the saucer-like indentations over the dorsal surface of the test of A. formosa Nicholls, Meisterfeld & Török n. sp. resemble similar structures found in several other Arcella species, the large size of A. formosa (165-235 mm in diameter) and its low profile (low height-to-diameter ratio) are the main features distinguishing this new species from other Arcella species.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207