Description of two dendrobatid tadpoles (Anura: Dendrobatidae: Andinobates and Oophaga) with comments on egg clutches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family Dendrobatidae is a taxonomically complex and diverse group subject to regular phylogenetic revisions and changes (e.g., Grant et al. 2017).Larval morphology proved useful in delimiting groups within dendrobatids (Myers & Daly 1980;Sánchez 2013;Grant et al. 2017), but more data on tadpole morphology is necessary to contribute to the development of new phylogenetic hypotheses for this interesting and highly diverse taxon (Sánchez 2013;Grant et al. 2017).The genus Oophaga was recognized through the division of the genus Dendrobates by Grant et al. (2006), whereas Andinobates was a proposed as a new genus by Brown et al. (2011) for a monophyletic group of species previously contained within the genus Ranitomeya.Detailed tadpole descriptions are available for nine out of sixteen species of Andinobates: A. abditus (
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".