Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Protist systematics is concerned with the classification of the typically microscopic organisms found in abundance nearly everywhere in the Earth's biosphere. Such organisms include the algae, the protozoa and certain lower fungi. Protists were assigned to the taxon Protista by Haeckel. However, it wasn't until the technological innovation of the electron microscope and the repopularisation by Margulis of the theory of serial endosymbiosis to explain the origin of eukaryotes that the discipline of protistology achieved a critical mass. By the end of the twentieth century, protistologists agreed that the Protista was not a natural assemblage. Data from both the ultrastructure of the flagellar/ciliary apparatuses of diverse lineages and later gene/genome sequences confirmed this. Currently, a consensus is emerging that there are possibly three major assemblages of eukaryotes into which the majority of protists can be assigned: Adl et al. (2012) have named these the Amorphea, Excavata and Diaphoretickes. Key Concepts: Protists are typically microscopic organisms, commonly called algae, protozoa and lower fungi. The taxon Protista was established by Haeckel (1866, 1878) to include these organisms and some others, but it was not enthusiastically embraced by botanists and zoologists in the 19th Century. Up until the mid‐twentieth century, protists were classified using significant features of their cell structure, such as plastids and storage products, their body form and their modes of locomotion. One popular classification grouped them into amoebae (i.e. Sarcodina), flagellates (i.e. Mastigophora), ciliates (i.e. Ciliophora) and spore‐formers (i.e. Sporozoa) (e.g. Manwell, 1961). The technological innovation of the transmission electron microscope and the repopularisation by Margulis (1970, 1981) of the theory of serial endosymbiosis to explain the origin of eukaryotes refocussed attention on protists. In the mid‐twentieth century, even though the Kingdom Protista was gaining popularity, experts recognised that it was likely not a monophyletic group. By the late twentieth century, gene sequences of the ribosomal RNA gene and in this century, sequences of hundreds of genes confirm that the protists must be split into several different lineages, which include the animals, plants and fungi. While there is not total agreement, an emerging consensus recognises these major groups: Archaeplastida, Sar, Excavata, Amoebozoa, Opisthokonta and a number of smaller lineages whose affinities are not yet determined.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".