The type localities of the mule deer,<i>Odocoileus hemionus</i>(Rafinesque, 1817), and the Kansas white-tailed deer,<i>Odocoileus virginianus macrourus</i>(Rafinesque, 1817), are not where we thought they were
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the iconic mammals of the North American West is the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). This species and a western subspecies of the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus macrourus) were two of seven mammals originally named and described as new species in 1817 by Constantine S. Rafinesque. Rafinesque never saw the animals that he named. Instead, he followed the then-acceptable practice of basing his new species on animals characterized in another published work, in this case the putative journal of Charles Le Raye, a French Canadian fur trader who was said to have traversed the upper Missouri River region before the Lewis and Clark Expedition and whose journal described some of the wildlife in detail. Unlike the mule deer, whose existence has been established by generations of biologists, wildlife management professionals, and sportsmen, Le Raye and his journal have since been proven to be fraudulent. Because Rafinesque's names were published in accordance with the taxonomic conventions of his time, they remain available, but, based on the questionable source of his descriptions, the identities and type localities of the species must be viewed as unreliable. Fortunately, much of the Le Raye journal was derived from other, verifiable contemporary sources. In particular, the descriptions of the two deer were based on the published journal of Patrick Gass, a member of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Using the Gass journal as the original source of Rafinesque's descriptions, the type localities for the two deer can be reliably placed in Lyman County, South Dakota.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".