MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400891777 · doi:10.1645/23-57

Genetic and Trait Variability of Gyrinicola Reveals the Existence of at Least Four Species within the United States

2024· article· en· W4400891777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew A. Walker, Matthew G. Bolek, Elliott A. Zieman, Kurt M. Neubig, F. Agustín Jiménez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parasitology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTraitEvolutionary biologyZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tadpole-dwelling pinworm, Gyrinicola batrachiensis (Walton, 1929) Adamson, 1981 was recognized as the sole representative of the genus across Canada and the United States. However, evaluation of the morphology of these parasites across their range revealed considerable morphological variability that suggested diagnosable morphotypes. These morphotypes were associated with different species of anurans, several of which occurred in sympatry. Herein we use an extensive geographic sampling across the United States to obtain the morphotypes, screen their genetic diversity, and analyze this information using an integrative approach. We reconstructed their phylogeny using nuclear ribosomal partial genes 18S and 28S, ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2, as well as 5 mitochondrial genes generated with Next-Generation sequencing technology. This phylogeny reveals 3 well-resolved lineages, which upon the use of a statistical approach (bPTP [Bayesian implementation of the Poisson tree processes]) supports the delimitation of 4 distinct groups equivalent to species. These putative species groups were tested using morphological characteristics paired with a MANOVA and canonical variate analysis. Results suggest that at least 4 species of Gyrinicola are present within North America, resulting in the resurrection of G. armatus (Walton, 1933) and the description of 2 new 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ParasitologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207