MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213061210 · doi:10.31807/tjwsm.835111

New Records for the Turkish Freshwater Algal Flora in Twenty Five River Basins of Turkey, Part IV: Ochrophyta

2021· article· en· W4213061210 on OpenAlexaff
Nilsun Demi̇r, Burak Öterler, Haşim Sömek, Tuğba Ongun Sevi̇ndi̇k, Elif Neyran Soylu, Yakup KARAASLAN, Tolga Çeti̇n, Abuzer Çelekli̇, Tolga Coşkun, Cüneyt Nadir Solak, Faruk Maraşlıoğlu, Murat Parlak, Hacer Merve KOCA, Doğancan MANAVOĞLU

Bibliographic record

VenueTurkish Journal of Water Science and Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest Territories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoplanktonEcologyTaxonPlanktonFlora (microbiology)HabitatAlgaeBiologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Turkish lakes have different morphometric and hydrological features as a result of different climates and noticeable altitude differences in Turkey that are necessary conditions to occur different habitats for algal diversity. The total number of algae taxa in the flora of Turkey has increased due to the growing number of studies on phytoplankton taxonomy and ecology in the last 40 years. This study aims to describe new planktonic algal taxa for the Turkish freshwater algal flora. A total of 56 Ochrophyta taxa were determined in this study, conducted from 2017 to 2019 in lakes lies in 25 river basins of Turkey. In 275 lakes, samples of phytoplankton were collected with water samplers from three depths (surface, middle, and bottom) of the euphotic zone, and then subsamples were obtained by mixing the water samples taken from these three depths. The plankton net with a pore diameter of 50 μm was also used for collecting samples of phytoplankton. The algal taxa was identified by using different types of compound and inverted microscopes in many laboratories. 30 Ochrophyta taxa of which were determined in this study, were reported as a new record for the first time for the freshwater algal flora of Turkey.

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)0.003
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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTurkish Journal of Water Science and ManagementSame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207