MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801874859 · doi:10.2988/17-00022

Rediscovery of the type series of the Acadian Masked Shrew,<i>Sorex acadicus</i>(Mammalia: Soricidae), with the designation of a neotype and a reevaluation of its taxonomic status

2018· article· en· W2801874859 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neal Woodman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Biological Society of Washington · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Natural Sciences of Drexel UniversitySmithsonian Institution
KeywordsShrewSorexHolotypeNomenclatureTaxonZoologySubspeciesType (biology)PelicanGeographyGenealogyTaxonomy (biology)BiologyHistoryPaleontologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The name Sorex acadicus Gilpin, 1865 is currently recognized as the valid name for the Nova Scotian subspecies of the masked shrew, S. cinereus Kerr, 1792 (Mammalia: Soricidae), but a holotype for the taxon was never designated, and the location of the type series has been a mystery. The authority for this species, John Bernard Gilpin, was associated with the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, NS, but that institution has no Gilpin specimens in its possession, and I could find no record of Gilpin shrews in any other Canadian Museum. I recently discovered a series of Gilpin specimens in the Mammal Collection of the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC (USNM), some of which may have been part of the original type series of S. acadicus, and I show that these specimens best represent Gilpin's concept of the taxon. From this series, I designate a neotype for S. acadicus. I also evaluate the distinctiveness of Nova Scotian S. c. acadicus compared with S. c. cinereus from Maine, New Brunswick, and New Hampshire and determine that S. acadicus should be considered a junior synonym of S. c. cinereus.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Biological Society of WashingtonSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207