Correction: Phylogenetic Analysis of Thecosomata Blainville, 1824 (Holoplanktonic Opisthobranchia) Using Morphological and Molecular Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thecosomata is a marine zooplankton group, which played an important role in the carbonate cycle in oceans due to their shell composition.So far, there is important discrepancy between the previous morphological-based taxonomies, and subsequently the evolutionary history of Thecosomata.In this study, the remarkable planktonic sampling of TARA Oceans expedition associated with a set of various other missions allowed us to assess the phylogenetic relationships of Thecosomata using morphological and molecular data (28 S and COI genes).The two gene trees showed incongruities (e.g.Hyalocylis, Cavolinia), and high congruence between morphological and 28S trees (e.g.monophyly of Euthecosomata).The monophyly of straight shell species led us to reviving the Orthoconcha, and the split of Limacinidae led us to the revival of Embolus inflata replacing Limacina inflata.The results also jeopardized the Euthecosomata families that are based on plesiomorphic character state as in the case for Creseidae which was not a monophyletic group.Divergence times were also estimated, and suggested that the evolutionary history of Thecosomata was characterized by four major diversifying events.By bringing the knowledge of palaeontology, we propose a new evolutionary scenario for which macro-evolution implying morphological innovations were rhythmed by climatic changes and associated species turn-over that spread from the Eocene to Miocene, and were shaped principally by predation and shell buoyancy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.128 | 0.034 |
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".