MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893920527 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5700163

Moina Baird 1850

2008· article· en· W6893920527 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInvertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenusReproductive isolationTaxonSibling speciesTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genus Moina Baird, 1850 Members of this genus were represented by one well defined species, Moina macrocopa (Straus), and by a group of three closely related genotypes in the Moina micrura group. According to the keys of Goulden (1968), all three phenotypes can be identified as M. micrura, but most cladocerologists agree that it is group of species. Evidence for this conclusion was given by Petrusek et al. (2004), who found reproductive isolation and deep divergence at 12S rRNA for populations of M. micrura from Europe and Australia, suggesting the presence of two sibling species. In the case of Mexican material, the three subgroups separated by DNA barcodes show consistent morphological and distributional differences (Fig. 1.4). M. micrura 1 is found in the semi-desert regions of the north, close to the Pacific side, while M. micrura 2 seems restricted to the highlands of the Central Plateau at sites more than 2000 m above sea level. The third group, designated as M. micrura 3, was found at a single northern locality, and shows an intermediate morphology to the other two types. It seems likely that none of these phenotypes are actually M. micrura s. str., described originally from Austria (Kurz, 1874).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyFrench-language works237,207