MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200410316 · doi:10.3390/taxonomy1040030

Disentangling the Taxonomic History of the Widespread and Overlooked Centric Diatom Stephanodiscus makarovae and Its Transfer to Cyclostephanos

2021· article· en· W4200410316 on OpenAlexaff
Konrad Schultz, Thomas Hübener, Mirko Dreßler, Olivier Jacques, Marcus Frank, Armin Springer, Anh Tu Van

Bibliographic record

VenueTaxonomy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonBiologyPhylogenetic treeMorphology (biology)PhylogeneticsGenusEvolutionary biologyKey (lock)ZoologyEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stephanodiscus makarovae, a taxon originally described from Russia, is morphologically similar to several other taxa within Cyclostephanos, namely C. invisitatus, C. delicatus and C. tholiformis. However, it has not yet been transferred into Cyclostephanos, perhaps due to the difficulty in identifying it, as its original description is available only in the Russian language. To investigate its morphology, a detailed morphological comparison of S. makarovae and C. invisitatus was done from 286 SEM micrographs of 12 monoclonal strains. We performed a three-gene phylogenetic analysis with strains from eight additional taxa to independently confirm the position of S. makarovae. The morphology of S. makarovae shows key features of the genus Cyclostephanos and this attribution is supported by the phylogeny. Here we propose the transfer of the taxon S. makarovae to Cyclostephanos, considering the morphological and molecular data. According to both the molecular and morphological data, C. delicatus has a unique position within the genus; S. makarovae and C. invisitatus are morphologically very similar but genetically distinct. Furthermore, based upon the results, it was possible to reassign the authority of the transfer of S. delicatus into Cyclostephanos.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaxonomySame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207