Revision taxonomica de los subgeneros Hyalodaphnia y Daphnia genero Daphnia mediante el uso demarcadores moleculares y Codigo de Barras COI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esta revision analizo algunos estudios realizados con COIBarcode ND5 12S RNAr y 16S RNAr conel fin de esclarecer la confusion existente en la clasificacion de los subgeneros Hyalodaphnia y Daphniagenero Daphnia Los resultados indican que el uso del gen COI permitio identificar a partir de unaespecie de D tenebrosa clasificada anteriormente tres especies provisionalmente diferentes igualmentetres especies de D pulex parecen formar linajes monofileticos en Churchill ManitobaCanada Para elmismo gen en el complejo D pulex se obtuvieron siete especies provisionalmente diferentes en la poblacionargentina En el complejo D pulex en Norte America Canada y Estados Unidos y Europa usando el genND5 se obtuvieron nueve especies provisionalmente diferentes tres de las cuales estaban erroneamenteclasificadas como D obtusa Para el complejo D galeata del subgenero Hyalodaphnia mediante el analisisdel gen COI y 12S ADNr se asignaron cuatro especies provisionalmente nuevas asi mismo en el complejoD longiremis se ubico D cristata El estudio del complejo D laevis en Norte America analizando lavariacion de aloenzimas y los genes 12S y 16S ADNr permitio discriminar cinco especies provisionalmentediferentes Sin embargo se recomienda realizar mas estudios para confirmar la clasificacion confusa delgenero Daphnia
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".