MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169939590 · doi:10.1645/ge-268r

PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS ON GENERA OF CORALLOBOTHRIINAE (CESTODA: PROTEOCEPHALIDEA) FROM NORTH AMERICAN ICTALURID FISHES, USING PARTIAL SEQUENCES OF THE 28S RIBOSOMAL GENE

2004· article· en· W2169939590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rogelio Rosas‐Valdez, Anindo Choudhury, Gerardo Pérez‐Ponce de León

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parasitology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMonophylyPhylogenetic treeCladePopulationZoologySister groupRibosomal DNASpecies complexTaxonEvolutionary biologyEcologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial sequences of the 28S rDNA (ribosomal gene) were obtained from a total of 11 populations of 5 species (in 3 genera) of North American corallobothriine proteocephalideans. These included Corallobothrium fimbriatum (3 populations), Corallobothrium parafimbriatum (1 population), Corallotaenia minutia (1 population), Megathylacoides giganteum (2 populations), and Megathylacoides lamothei (4 populations). These sequences were used in a phylogenetic analysis to test the monophyly of Corallobothriinae and to investigate the interrelationships of the North American species. The results indicate that Corallobothriinae, as conventionally understood, is not monophyletic and that only the North American corallobothriines, parasites of ictalurid catfishes, form a monophyletic group. Corallobothrium parafimbriatum is sister taxon to a clade that includes Corallotaenia intermedia and C. minutia and not to its congener C. fimbriatum. Also, M. giganteum from Mexico appears to be more closely related to M. lamothei than to its conspecific in Canada. This and the amount of sequence divergence indicate possible cryptic speciation in its endemic host, the Lerma catfish, Ictalurus dugesi.

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)0.000
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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ParasitologySame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207