Speciation in the genus<i>Cloacina</i>(Nematoda: Strongylida): species flocks and intra-host speciation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequences of the first and second internal transcribed spacers (ITS1 + ITS2) of nuclear ribosomal DNA were employed to determine whether the congeneric assemblages of species of the strongyloid nematode genus Cloacina, found in the forestomachs of individual species of kangaroos and wallabies (Marsupialia: Macropodidae), considered to represent species flocks, were monophyletic. Nematode assemblages examined in the black-striped wallaby, Macropus (Notamacropus) dorsalis, the wallaroos, Macropus (Osphranter) antilopinus/robustus, rock wallabies, Petrogale spp., the quokka, Setonix brachyurus, and the swamp wallaby, Wallabia bicolor, were not monophyletic and appeared to have arisen by host colonization. However, a number of instances of within-host speciation were detected, suggesting that a variety of methods of speciation have contributed to the evolution of the complex assemblages of species present in this genus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".