Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genus Daphnia O. F. Müller, 1785 This genus was represented in our collections by six species, all well discriminated by COI sequences. Three of the species belonged to the subgenus Daphnia (D. parvula, D. cheraphila Hebert and Finston 1996, Daphnia sp.), and three to the subgenus Ctenodaphnia (D. magna, D. exilis, D. lumholtzi). Comparisons with sequence records in GenBank revealed that Daphnia exilis showed little divergence from its close relative D. spinulata (minimum 0.80, maximum 3.9%), from Argentina. Despite this fact, the D. exilis from Mexico was grouped in the same cluster, which was distinct from the cluster formed by D. spinulata. These two species do show allozyme (Adamowicz et al. 2004) and morphological differences (Benzie 2005). Daphnia cheraphila was recently described by Hebert & Finston (1996) who included material from Mexico in their original description. Our material showed 1.94% COI divergence from sequences in GenBank for this species. Another Daphnia, a member of the pulex group, seems to represent a new species as its closest COI match (12.7%) was to Daphnia parvula from Río Coronda, Argentina. We recorded the invasive species D. lumholtzi for the first time in Mexico in the northern state of Sonora. Given its broad distribution across the United States and its presence in southern Canada, its detection was not unexpected. The Mexican specimens showed barcode identity with populations from the other North American populations that have been sequenced (0.47% maximum) and high divergences (8.68% minimum) with Australian specimens (Havel et al. 2000).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".