MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915710547 · doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.394.1.2

Two new centric diatoms (Bacillariophyta) from the sub-Antarctic region

2019· article· en· W2915710547 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bart Van de Vijver, Václav Houk

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotaxa · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBelgian Federal Science Policy OfficePolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsBiologyTaxonArchipelagoDiatomMossEcologyTaxonomy (biology)CaveBotanyZoologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During a survey of the limno-terrestrial diatom flora of the sub-Antarctic region, two unknown melosiroid diatom taxa were observed in several shaded, damp cave (moss and soil) samples from Heard Island and Ile de la Possession, the main island of the Crozet Archipelago. Comparison with already known species from the genus Melosira and the recently described genera Arcanodiscus, Angusticopula and Ferocia, resulted in the description of both new taxa based on detailed light and scanning electron microscopy. A first species was described as Ferocia subantarctica sp. nov. and can be distinguished based on its numerous, narrow girdle bands, relatively weakly domed valves, a limited number of well-developed spines and a rather large, hyaline central area. The second species, Arcanodiscus desmetianus Van de Vijver sp. nov., can be recognized based on its solitary frustules, a series of parallel ridges surrounding the mantle and a hyaline central area that is only less than 50% of the total valve diameter. Both taxa are morphologically and ecologically characterized and compared with all known melosiroid taxa worldwide.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytotaxaSame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207