MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133246116 · doi:10.3390/quat4010006

Lake Sedimentary DNA Research on Past Terrestrial and Aquatic Biodiversity: Overview and Recommendations

2021· article· en· W3133246116 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Capo, Charline Giguet‐Covex, Alexandra Rouillard, Kevin Nota, Peter D. Heintzman, Aurèle Vuillemin, Daniel Arizteguí, Fabien Arnaud, Simon Belle, Stefan Bertilsson, Christian Bigler, Richard Bindler, Antony G. Brown, Charlotte Clarke, Sarah E. Crump, Didier Debroas, Göran Englund, Gentile Francesco Ficetola, Rebecca E. Garner, Joanna Gauthier, Irene Gregory‐Eaves, Liv Heinecke, Ulrike Herzschuh, Anan Ibrahim, Veljo Kisand, Kurt H. Kjær, Youri Lammers, Joanne E. Littlefair, Erwan Messager, Marie‐Ève Monchamp, Fredrik Olajos, William D. Orsi, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Dilli P. Rijal, Johan Rydberg, Trisha Spanbauer, Kathleen R. Stoof‐Leichsenring, Pierre Taberlet, Liisi Talas, Camille Thomas, David A. Walsh, Yucheng Wang, Eske Willerslev, Anne van Woerkom, Heike Zimmermann, Marco J. L. Coolen, Laura S. Epp, Isabelle Domaizon, Inger Greve Alsos, Laura Parducci

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
FundersInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement
KeywordsSedimentary rockAncient DNABiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental DNAField (mathematics)Earth scienceBiotaEnvironmental sciencePaleontologyEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of lake sedimentary DNA to track the long-term changes in both terrestrial and aquatic biota is a rapidly advancing field in paleoecological research. Although largely applied nowadays, knowledge gaps remain in this field and there is therefore still research to be conducted to ensure the reliability of the sedimentary DNA signal. Building on the most recent literature and seven original case studies, we synthesize the state-of-the-art analytical procedures for effective sampling, extraction, amplification, quantification and/or generation of DNA inventories from sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) via high-throughput sequencing technologies. We provide recommendations based on current knowledge and best practises.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations242
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternarySame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207