MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152874337 · doi:10.1111/zoj.12056

Taxonomy, biogeography and DNA barcodes of<i>Geodia</i>species (Porifera, Demospongiae, Tetractinellida) in the Atlantic boreo-arctic region

2013· article· en· W2152874337 on OpenAlexafffund
Paco Cárdenas, Hans Tore Rapp, Anders Rendtorff Klitgaard, Megan Best, Mikael Thollesson, Ole Secher Tendal

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersBerkeley Natural History MuseumsNorwegian Biodiversity Information CentreNatural Resources CanadaMuséum National d'Histoire NaturelleAgence des Aires Marines ProtégéesUppsala UniversitetUniversitetet i BergenCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceNorges ForskningsrådDartmouth College
KeywordsBiologyBiogeographyTaxonomy (biology)ArcticZoologyThe arcticEcologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geodia species north of 60°N in the Atlantic appeared in the literature for the first time when Bowerbank described Geodia barretti and G. macandrewii in 1858 from western Norway.Since then, a number of species have been based on material from various parts of the region: G. simplex, Isops phlegraei, I. pallida, I. sphaeroides, Synops pyriformis, G. parva, G. normani, G. atlantica, Sidonops mesotriaena (now called G. hentscheli), and G. simplicissima.In addition to these 12 nominal species, four species described from elsewhere are claimed to have been identified in material from the northeast Atlantic, namely G. nodastrella and G. cydonium (and its synonyms Cydonium muelleri and Geodia gigas).In this paper, we revise the boreo-arctic Geodia species using morphological, molecular, and biogeographical data.We notably compare northwest and northeast Atlantic specimens.Biological data (reproduction, biochemistry, microbiology, epibionts) for each species are also reviewed.Our results show that there are six valid species of boreo-arctic Atlantic Geodia while other names are synonyms or mis-identifications.Geodia barretti, G. atlantica, G. macandrewii, and G. hentscheli are well established and widely distributed.The same goes for Geodia phlegraei, but this species shows a striking geographical and bathymetric variation, which led us to recognize two species, G. phlegraei and G. parva (here resurrected).Some Geodia are arctic species (G.hentscheli, G. parva), while others are typically boreal (G.atlantica, G. barretti, G. phlegraei, G. macandrewii).No morphological differences were found between specimens from the northeast and northwest Atlantic, except for G. parva.The Folmer cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) fragment is unique for every species and invariable over their whole distribution range, except for G. barretti which had two haplotypes.18S is unique for four species but cannot discriminate G. phlegraei and G. parva.Two keys to the boreo-arctic Geodia are included, one based on external morphology, the other based on spicule morphology.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations81
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207