Middle ear instrument nomenclature: a taxonomic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from a common origin in the early 17th century, the divergent evolution of the English language between North America and Great Britain holds a great deal of interest for linguists, but is a source of confusion to the unwary traveller.1 An example of such confusion arose when the lead author of this article, trained in the UK as an otolaryngologist, found that his use of the term “crocodile forceps”—referring to the commonly used surgical instrument used to perform delicate middle ear surgery—met with bewilderment in US and Canadian hospitals (fig 1⇓). There, as it turned out, the term “alligator forceps” was prevalent. Fig 1 Hartmann Alligator Micro-Forceps, model MCO13B. Manufactured by Microfrance Incorporated. Medtronic Xomed, Jacksonville, FL (reproduced with permission) To avoid such communication problems, biologists maintain strict rules relating to their formal nomenclature. The earliest binomial for an organism, published within or since Carl Linnaeus’s Species Plantarum (1753; for plants) or the first volume of his 10th edition of Systema Naturae (1758; for animals), is by international convention considered to be the only valid name.2 On further investigation, however, an organism can be reclassified as belonging to a different genus, whereupon its scientific name can properly be changed. In the interests of scientific clarity, a dispassionate investigation of the correct terminology for these forceps is clearly long overdue. We address this important issue both through establishing priority of nomenclature within the literature and through original investigations of jaw morphology. Modern crocodyliforms within the suborder Eusuchia appeared in the Cretaceous period3 …
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".