Cytoskeletal organization, phylogenetic affinities and systematics in the contentious taxon Excavata (Eukaryota)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An overview of the controversial proposal for the major eukaryote taxon "Excavata" is presented. Excavata is predicted to include at least ten distinct groups: jakobids, Malawimonas, Trimastix, Carpediemonas, retortamonads, diplomonads, Heterolobosea, oxymonads, parabasalids and Euglenozoa. These "excavates" have broadly similar flagellar apparatus organizations, for which a "universal" terminology is provided. Most, but not all, of these organisms share a distinctive suspension-feeding groove, as well as some or all of a set of seven other proposed cytoskeletal apomorphies. Cladistic analyses of morphological data do not resolve high-level relationships within Excavata. Excavate-rich molecular phylogenies recover some robust clades, but do not support or strongly refute the monophyly of Excavata. A partial classification for excavates is presented, with phylogenetic diagnoses for Excavata and for two novel taxon names, Fornicata (Carpediemonas, retortamonads, diplomonads) and Preaxostyla (Trimastix, oxymonads).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".