MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993847121 · doi:10.1080/00318884.2019.1670013

Amphidomataceae (Dinophyceae) in the western Greenland area, including description of <i>Azadinium perforatum sp. nov.</i>

2019· article· en· W2993847121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Urban Tillmann, Stephan Wietkamp, Bernd Krock, Anette Tillmann, Daniela Voß, Haifeng Gu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhycologia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Toxins and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDinophyceaeBiologyPlanktonAlgal bloomFjordMarine toxinZoologyEcologyToxinPhytoplanktonOceanographyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Azaspiracids (AZA) are lipophilic marine biotoxins associated with shellfish poisoning which are produced by some species of Amphidomataceae. Diversity and global biogeography of this family are still poorly known. In summer 2017 plankton samples were collected from the central Labrador Sea and western Greenland coast from 64° N (Gothaab Fjord) to 75° N for the presence of Amphidomataceae and AZA. In the central Labrador Sea, light microscopy revealed small Azadinium-like cells (9200 cells l−1). Clonal strains established from plankton samples and scanning electron microscopy of fixed plankton samples revealed at least eight species of Amphidomataceae: Azadinium obesum, Az. trinitatum, Az. dexteroporum, Az. spinosum, Az. polongum, Amphidoma languida, Azadinium spec., and a new species described here as Azadinium perforatum sp. nov. The new species differed from other Azadinium species by the presence of thecal pores on the pore plate. All samples, including cultured strains, filtered seawater samples, and solid phase adsorption toxin tracking (SPATT) samplers deployed during the expedition in a continuous water-sampling system (FerryBox), were negative for AZA. DNA samples and PCR assays were positive for Amphidomataceae from most stations, whereas species-specific assays for three toxigenic species were rarely positive (two stations for Az. poporum, one station for Am. languida). The results highlight the presence of Amphidomataceae in the area but the lack of toxins and low abundance of toxigenic species currently indicate a low risk of toxic Amphidomataceae blooms in Arctic coastal waters.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhycologiaSame topicMarine Toxins and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207