Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1980, the Sixth Symposium on Recent and Fossil Diatoms was held in Budapest, Hungary. It was the first opportunity many of us had to meet our colleagues from behind the “Iron Curtain” and an early harbinger of the perestroika of politics and science that took place a decade later and is now being reversed. There were many worthy contributions, and as was usual at the time, the Proceedings were published in a special volume edited by Ross (1981). One of the presentations that was not included in the volume was one by the late Beatrice Booth of the Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, who showed a series of slides of curious tiny cells, covered by elaborate silica plates that abutted to form a continuous wall, rather than overlapping as in scaly synurophytes. The slide projection during this symposium was tricky (the Hungarian projector didn't like some of our transparencies), but participants, including micropaleontologists and widely experienced botanists (e.g., Hans Adolf von Stosch), were introduced to these “new” organisms, and Beatrice asked whether we had seen anything like them previously or had any idea what they might be. None of us had. A paper was published the same year (Booth et al., 1980), reporting and illustrating the cells from nanoplankton in the Gulf of Alaska. It was suggested that they were “likely a cyst stage and that they may be part of the life cycle of species of siliceous oceanic choanoflagellates.” Of course, at that time, there was no realistic possibility of using DNA or protein sequence data to check their true affinities, and “opisthokonts” and “stramenopiles” were concepts of the far future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".