Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ru.bri.mo'nas. L. adj. ruber reddish; Gr. n. monas unit; M.L. fem. n. Rubrimonas reddish monad. Rubrimonas cells are Gram‐negative , short to ovoid rods , 1 . 0–1 . 5 × 1 . 2–2 . 0 μ m . Motile by polar flagella . Division occurs by binary fission . Forms pink circular colonies when grown on agar media. Pink coloration is due to the presence of carotenoid pigments . Cells grow heterotrophically under aerobic conditions and produce bacteriochlorophyll ( Bchl ) a . No growth occurs under anaerobic conditions even in the light . Habitat is saline lakes. The mol % G + C of the DNA is : 70.4–74.8. Type species : Rubrimonas cliftonensis Suzuki, Muroga, Takahama, Shiba and Nishimura 1999b, 204. Taxonomic and Nomenclature Notes According to the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN), the taxonomic status of the genus Rubrimonas is: correct name (last update, February 2025) * . LPSN classification: Bacteria / Pseudomonadati / Pseudomonadota / Alphaproteobacteria / Rhodobacterales / Paracoccaceae / Rubrimonas The genus Rubrimonas can also be recovered in the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) as g__Rubrimonas (version v220) ** . GTDB classification: d__Bacteria / p__Pseudomonadota / c__Alphaproteobacteria / o__Rhodobacterales / f__Rhodobacteraceae / g__Rubrimonas * Meier‐Kolthoff et al. ( 2022 ). Nucleic Acids Res , 50 , D801 – D807 ; DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkab902 ** Parks et al. ( 2022 ). Nucleic Acids Res , 50 , D785 – D794 ; DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkab776
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.289 | 0.403 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".