MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388620465 · doi:10.1101/2023.11.08.566290

<i>In situ</i> observation and range extension of the first monoplacophoran <i>Neopilina galatheae</i>

2023· preprint· en· W4388620465 on OpenAlexafffund
Chong Chen, John W. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyMemorial University of NewfoundlandSchmidt Ocean Institute
KeywordsLavaRange (aeronautics)PaleontologySubstrate (aquarium)GeologyGeographyDeep seaOceanographyBasaltArchaeologyVolcanoMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Monoplacophoran molluscs have been dubbed ‘living fossils’ due to their absence in the fossil record for about 375 million years, until Neopilina galatheae Lemche, 1957 was trawled off Costa Rica in 1952. Since then, over 35 species of living monoplacophorans have been discovered. Nevertheless, in situ observations of these rare deep-sea animals remain scant. Here, we observed and collected an intact specimen of N. galatheae using a remotely operated vehicle from 2460 m deep on the Eastern Galápagos Spreading Center. The animal was found attached to the glassy surface of solidified basalt lava flow, and no feeding trails were found near the animal. Such hard substrate is in contrast with previous records that were trawled on sand and mud, suggesting Neopilina can be found on a wide range of substrates. This is the first time this species was collected since 1959, and represents a southeast range extension of about 1000 km for the species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMarine Biology and Ecology Research→French-language works237,207→