Genetic and morphological heterogeneity among populations of Eurytemora affinis (Crustacea: Copepoda: Temoridae) in European waters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of the systematics of the Eurytemora affinis complex developed at a fast pace over the last decades. Formerly considered as a complex of cryptic species, it is now believed to include three valid species: E. affinis, Eurytemora carolleeae, and Eurytemora caspica. American and European representatives have been studied in detail with respect to fine-scale geographic distribution, levels of genetic subdivision, evolutionary and demographic histories. Morphological components have been less explored. In this study, an analysis of the phylogeny and morphology of E. affinis was done, with a special focus on European populations. A total of 447 individuals of E. affinis from Europe were analyzed with genetic tools and 170 individuals according to morphological criteria. Common and new morphological and genetic features were analyzed. For this, we used ML and Bayesian methods to analyze the bar coding mt-DNA gene cytochrome c oxidase I subunit. Both genetic and morphological analyses showed high heterogeneities among the E. affinis populations from Europe. As a result, three local populations of E. affinis in Western Europe, including the European part of Russia, were established. Their genetic and morphological heterogeneity corresponded to the subspecies level.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it