MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996740144 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3630.1.6

Callogobius winterbottomi, a new species of goby (Teleostei: Gobiidae) from the Western Indian Ocean

2013· article· en· W1996740144 on OpenAlexafffund
Naomi R. Delventhal, Randall D. Mooi

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSouth African Institute for Aquatic BiodiversityField MuseumAcademy of Natural Sciences of Drexel UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyTeleosteiGobyFisheryIndian oceanEcologyZoologyOceanographyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Callogobius winterbottomi new species is described from the 33.8 mm SL holotype and two paratypes (32.2 mm SL and 22.9 mm SL) from the Comoros, Western Indian Ocean. It is distinguished from all other known Callogobius species by the following combination of characters: sensory pores absent, 23-26 scales in lateral series, and sensory papillae preopercular row not continuous with transverse opercular row. One additional specimen of Callogobius winterbottomi was located from South Africa. A new standardized naming system for Callogobius sensory papillae rows is presented for identification and clarification of character states among Callogobius species. The new species is tentatively placed among what we term the "sclateri group", a clade including C. sclateri (Steindachner) and three other species that exhibit a modified female urogenital papilla with lateral distal flaps and elongate ctenii on the caudal peduncle scales. Callogobius tutuilae (Jordan & Seale) is removed from synonymy with C. sclateri because it has partially united pelvic fins (vs separate) and the preopercular sensory papillae row is continuous with the transverse opercular row (vs separate).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207