Genome size estimates for Aplacophora, Polyplacophora and Scaphopoda: small solenogasters and sizeable scaphopods: Table 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mollusca is the second most species-rich animal phylum and includes species with dramatically different body plans ranging from tiny, meiofaunal worms and snails to giant squid. Currently, only four well-annotated molluscan genomes have been published: the bivalves Crassostrea gigas (Zhang et al., 2012) and Pinctada fucata (Takeuchi et al., 2012), the gastropod Lottia gigantea (Simakov et al., 2013) and the cephalopod Octopus bimaculoides (Albertin et al., 2015). Additional bivalve, gastropod and cephalopod genomes are forthcoming (e.g. Moroz, 2011; Albertin et al., 2012; F. Ghiselli, personal communication; N. Whelan, personal communication). High-quality genomes from other molluscan lineages would be of great interest to the fields of malacology, comparative and evolutionary genomics, and evolutionary developmental biology. In particular, genomic data from representatives of Aculifera (Aplacophora and Polyplacophora) are of importance from an evolutionary genomics perspective, because this clade is the sister taxon of all other molluscs (Kocot, Halanych & Krug, 2011; Smith et al., 2011; Vinther et al., 2012). Likewise, Scaphopoda is interesting because it is closely related to the well-studied Gastropoda and Bivalvia, although the exact phylogenetic relationships among these three taxa remain unclear (Kocot et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2011; Vinther et al., 2012; reviewed by Kocot, 2013 and Schrödl & Stöger, 2014). Comparative developmental gene expression studies in both aculiferans and scaphopods would also be of great interest with regard to understanding the evolution of diverse molluscan body plans and complex processes such as biomineralization. Currently, these topics are only partially understood in gastropods and bivalves (e.g. Jackson, Wörheide & Degnan, 2007; Jackson et al., 2010).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
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".