MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991151120 · doi:10.1080/00222930903094647

On <i>Liljeborgia fissicornis</i> (M. Sars, 1858) and three related new species from Scandinavia, with a hypothesis on the origin of the group <i>fissicornis</i>

2009· article· en· W1991151120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cédric d’Udekem d’Acoz, Wim Vader

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Natural History · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinental shelfArcticOceanographyDeep seaThe arcticDeep waterBiologyWaves and shallow waterStructural basinGeologyEcologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large and common Scandinavian amphipod Liljeborgia fissicornis (M. Sars) is split into four species: the deep-water L. caliginis sp. nov. and L. charybdis sp. nov., and the shallow-water L. fissicornis and L. ossiani sp. nov. The poorly known species L. polosi Barnard and Karaman, recorded from the deep Canadian Basin of the Arctic Ocean, is considered as belonging to the same group. All those northern species are completely devoid of eyes, while similar species from the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic continental shelf do have eyes. It is hypothesized that the group fissicornis, which is specific to cold waters, derives from ancestors living on the continental shelf of the Southern Ocean. These ancestors would have adapted to deep-sea environments, losing their eyes completely. Then they would have migrated northwards through the cold abyss, and reached the cold but shallow waters of the Arctic/sub-Arctic continental shelf, without redeveloping visual organs.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Natural HistorySame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207