MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peer Review #2 of "Characteristics of the complete mitochondrial genome of Suhpalacsa longialata (Neuroptera, Ascalaphidae) and its phylogenetic implications (v0.2)"

2018· peer-review· en· W4211013374 on OpenAlexaff
Xinyan Gao, Yin-Yin Cai, Dan‐Na Yu, Kenneth B. Storey, Jia‐Yong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropteraPhylogenetic treeBiologyMitochondrial DNAEvolutionary biologyZoologyGeneticsPaleontologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The owlflies (Family Ascalaphidae) belong to the Neuroptera but are often mistaken as dragonflies because of morphological characters. To date, only three mitochondrial genomes of Ascalaphidae, namely Libelloides macaronius; Ascaloptynx appendiculatus; Ascalohybris subjacens, are published in GenBank, meaning that they are greatly underrepresented in comparison with the 430 described species reported in this family. In this study, we sequenced and described the complete mitochondrial genome of Suhpalacsa longialata (Neuroptera, Ascalaphidae). The total length of the S. longialata mitogenome was 15,911 bp, which is the longest known to date among the available family members of Ascalaphidae. However, the size of each gene was similar to the other three Ascalaphidae species. The S. longialata mitogenome included a transposition of tRNACys and tRNATrp genes and formed an unusual gene arrangement tRNA Cys -tRNA Trp -tRNA Tyr (CWY) . It is likely that the transposition occurred by a duplication of both genes followed by random loss of partial duplicated genes. The nucleotide composition of the S. longialata mitogenome was as follows: A=41.0%, T=33.8%, C=15.5%, G=9.7%. Both BI and ML analyses strongly supported S. longialata as a sister clade to (Ascalohybris subjacens + L. macaronius), and indicated that Ascalaphidae is not monophyletic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207