On the presence of the epibiont (ectosymbiont) Lagenophrys lenticulata (Kellicott, 1885) (Ciliophora) on Hyalella cursvispina Schoemaker, 1942: is it possible to find it on Chilean Hyalella populations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The amphipods of the genus Hyalella have many endemic species throughout South America, and these may have poorly studied associated species as epibionts. The aim of the present study was to review the literature on the presence of the protozoon Lagenophrys lenticulata (Kellicott, 1885) on species of Hyalella and contrast the results with the geographical distribution of the reported hosts. The literature records the presence of L. lenticulata on populations of H. azteca from Canada, Mexico and the United States of America, and on populations of H. curvispina from Uruguay. The literature also reports that H. curvispina is widespread throughout southern South America, including Argentina and Chile, and that it would be possible to find the presence of epibionts on other populations of H. curvispina . The corresponding biogeographical and evolutionary topics are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".