Judicial Opinion 132
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opinion 132 deals with a Request for an Opinion asking the Judicial Commission to assess the nomenclatural status of Skermania piniformis (Blackall et al. 1989) Chun et al. 1997, a new combination affected by an unusual change in the epithet of its basonym, Nocardia pinensis Blackall et al. 1989. This is done by re-evaluating Opinion 85, which sets a precedent. The reasons and consequences of this earlier Opinion are explained in detail, and corresponding guidelines for orthographic corrections are given, along with further guidance derived from more recently published Judicial Opinions. The request to change the epithet to Skermania pinensis corrig. (Blackall et al. 1989) Chun et al. 1997 is granted, and it is also emphasized that this does not affect the legitimacy or the date of valid publication of the names involved. The Judicial Commission also grants the third request made in the same article and rules that, according to Rule 54 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), it is not necessary, and even unwise, to propose two names for the same taxon in the same study to replace an illegitimate name.
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 | 0.015 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.026 |
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".