MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761944469 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2017-0072

<i>Henricia</i> spp. (Echinodermata: Asteroidea: Echinasteridae) of the White Sea: morphology, morphometry, and synonymy

2017· article· en· W2761944469 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olga A. Bratova, Gita G. Paskerova

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEchinoderm biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyZoologyTaxonomy (biology)ArcticGenusSubspeciesEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though sea stars of the genus Henricia Gray, 1840 are widely used in biological studies, their species diversity in the Arctic is poorly understood. We conducted a taxonomic revision of the genus Henricia from the White Sea and examined 381 specimens of Henricia sea stars deposited in the collection of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg), the type collection founded by A.M. Djakonov, and our own collection. Following the 1987 study by F.J. Madsen and the 1950 study by A.M. Djakonov, we identified six species in the White Sea: Henricia eschrichti (J. Müller and Troschel, 1842), Henricia perforata (O.F. Müller, 1776), Henricia scabrior (Michailovskij, 1903), Henricia solida Djakonov, 1950, Henricia sanguinolenta (O.F. Müller, 1776), and Henricia pertusa (O.F. Müller, 1776). Updated descriptions, identification keys, and distribution data of these species are provided. Statistical analysis based on the set of individual characters confirmed the validity of the species H. scabrior. Synonymy of Henricia species according to the 1950 study by A.M. Djakonov and the 1987 study by F.J. Madsen is discussed.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicEchinoderm biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207