Biogeography of bacteriophages at four hydrothermal vent sites in the Antarctic based on gp23 sequence diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, which was carried out within the ChEsSO consortium project (Chemosynthetically driven ecosystems south of the Polar Front), we sampled two hydrothermal vent sites on the East Scotia Ridge, Scotia Sea, one in the Kemp Caldera, South Sandwich Arc, and one in the Bransfield Strait, north-west of the Antarctic Peninsula, which exhibit strong differences in their chemical characteristics. We compared a subset of their bacteriophage population by Sanger- and 454-sequencing of g23, which codes for the major capsid protein of T4likeviruses. \n \nWe found that the sites differ vastly in their bacteriophage diversity, which reflects the differences in the chemical conditions and therefore putatively the differences in microbial hosts living at these sites. Comparing phage diversity in the vent samples to other aquatic samples, the vent samples formed a distinct separate cluster, which also included the non-vent control samples that were taken several hundred meters above the vent chimneys. This indicates that the influence of the vents on the microbial population and therefore also the bacteriophage population extends much further than anticipated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".