FAMILY AND GENERIC DELINEATION WITHIN THE ACROCHAETIALES (RHODOPHYTA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harper, J. T. & Saunders, G. W. Center for Environmental and Molecular Algal Research, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada, E3B 6E1 Recent SSU‐ and LSU‐based molecular systematic investigations have confirmed the close relationships between the members of the Acrochaetiales‐Nemaliales‐Palmariales complex. While the Nemaliales and Palmariales have consistently been resolved as monophyletic, the Acrochaetiales is represented by two divergent and strongly supported groups‐Acrochaetiales I and II. While the Nemaliales has been resolved as sister to the Acrochaetiales and Palmariales, the relationships between the remaining taxa are equivocal. Recognition of two families within the Acrochaetiales is proposed ‐ an emended Acrochaetiaceae and Colaconemataceae fam. nov. Molecular data have confirmed the placement of Acrochaetium, Audouinella, and Rhodochorton within the Acrochaetiaceae and Colaconema within the Colaconemataceae. Based on morphological and anatomical grounds, the genus Liagorophila is placed in synonymy with Acrochaetium. The Colaconemataceae houses a diverse assemblage of marine acrochaetioid taxa, and will most certainly be represented by multiple genera following further investigation. Key features of taxa within this group will be presented, as well as a review of the valid generic names available for colaconemataceaen species ‐ Grania and Kylinia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".