Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic and evolutionary studies of Demospongiae Sollas, 1885 are a very dynamic field of research. The scientific knowledge pertaining to Demospongiae systematics has been recently assembled in the collective book Systema Porifera. However, a general consensus among spongologists has not yet been achieved regarding this group and the phylogenetic relationships within Demospongiae and between Demospongiae and other clades of Porifera and metazoans are still unresolved. The two traditional subclasses Tetractinomorpha and Ceractinomorpha are polyphyletic and it is proposed that they be abandoned. Since the publication of Systema Porifera, several works have suggested the polyphyly of Halichondrida and the paraphyly of Haplosclerida, as well as the monophyly of Tetractinellida (Astrophorida + Spirophorida), Keratosa (Dictyoceratida + Dendroceratida), and Myxospongiae (Chondrosida + Verongida + Halisarcida). Within all the classical orders, whether they are monophyletic or not, families and even genera have also been found to be polyphyletic. For example, Ancorinidae, Geodiidae, and Axinellidae are clearly polyphyletic. No single data set is able to resolve all the problems; thus, it is absolutely necessary that the classification of Demospongiae be examined from all angles and with as many data sets as possible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".