MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Unusual New Rheophytic Species of the Liverwort Genus <i>Cephaloziella</i> from Panama

2025· article· en· W7125955371 on OpenAlexaff
Adriel M. Sierra, S. Robbert Gradstein, José Gudiño L.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Botany · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerianthBryophyteBractSetaPanamaBryopsidaGenusLejeuneaceaePhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract— During bryophyte surveys in the Antón River watershed, Coclé Province, Panama, we discovered a minute rheophytic liverwort representing an undescribed species of Cephaloziellaceae. Phylogenetic analyses based on nuclear ITS1‐2 and plastid rbcL DNA markers placed the new species within Cephaloziella , where it resolved in a clade with C. microphylla , C. kiaeri , and C. recurvifolia in the ITS tree, and with C. microphylla alone in the rbcL tree. We describe the species as Cephaloziella minutiloba . The new species is morphologically distinct by its minute size, flagelliform shoots, scattered violet rhizoids, succubous and highly unequally conduplicate leaves with a prominent ventral lobe and a strongly reduced dorsal lobe bent over the ventral lobe, and crenate-dentate leaf margins. The gynoecia on short ventral branches are made up of 2‐3 series of highly connate, crenate bracts and a 5-plicate perianth with a fringed mouth. This new species expands our understanding of morphological diversity and rheophytic adaptation within Cephaloziella . The morphological affinities of the species are discussed, and the importance of integrative taxonomic approaches in liverwort systematics is emphasized.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic BotanySame topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207