MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511565606 · doi:10.1071/sb16018

A preliminary molecular phylogeny of the genus Riccia L. (Ricciaceae) in Australia

2016· article· en· W2511565606 on OpenAlexaff
D. Christine Cargill, Will C. Neal, Ish Sharma, Cécile Gueidan

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Systematic Botany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
FundersWomen and Infants Research Foundation
KeywordsPolyphylySubgenusMonophylyBiologySystematicsTaxonGenusZoologyMolecular phylogeneticsBiogeographyTaxonomy (biology)PhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyBotanyEcologyClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several Australian Riccia taxa have been sequenced for the first time, with the majority from the monsoon tropics of the Northern Territory, north of 18° latitude. This allowed testing of several infrageneric groupings within the genus as well as morphological species concepts. Molecular data from one nuclear and four plastid markers support the genus as a monophyletic group. However, the monophyly of the two largest subgenera, subgenus Riccia and subgenus Ricciella, are not supported, with the latter being polyphyletic and well nested within subgenus Riccia. Several currently accepted species such as Riccia inflexa and Riccia lamellosa were also found to be polyphyletic. A second tree reconstruction using only trnL–F sequences allowed comparison to several taxa collected outside of Australia. This showed that some species have a truly cosmopolitan distribution, whereas others have not.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Systematic BotanySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207