MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212871462 · doi:10.1017/s0025315421000709

Demosponges from Ascension Island with a description of nine new species

2021· article· en· W3212871462 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Goodwin, Judith Brown, Rachel Downey, Nhu Trieu, Paul E. Brewin, Paul Brickle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsHuntsman Marine Science CentreUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaunaSpongeEcologyScuba divingBiologyGeographyZoologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We surveyed the shallow-water sponges of Ascension Island using scuba diving. In total, we collected 58 sponge specimens from 17 locations at depths of 0.5–30 m. In addition, we compiled historical records of sponges. We describe nine species new to science:Niphates verityaesp. nov.,Petrosia(Petrosia)ernestisp. nov.,Monanchora downesaesp. nov.,Svenzea weberorumsp. nov.,Erylus williamsaesp. nov.,Ircinia nolanaesp. nov.,Ircinia richardsonisp. nov.,Ircinia simaesp. nov. andChondrosia browningorumsp. nov. We provide molecular sequences for three of the new species. We have added 50% to the number of known species and added two new genera and one family to the known Ascension Island sponge fauna. Twenty-six species, from 16 genera, and 13 families, are now reported from Ascension's shallow waters. Many of these may be endemic to the island. We discuss the biogeographic affinities of Ascension Island and emphasize the need for additional survey of the sponge fauna of remote islands such as Ascension.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomSame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207