MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6892555922 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.11345052

Eumetopias jubatus

2005· article· en· W6892555922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationIUCN Red ListPacific oceanEndangered speciesLife history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eumetopias jubatus (Schreber 1776) [Phoca] jubata Schreber 1776, Die Saugethiere, Vol. 3, 17: 300 (text) [1776]; see also 3 (17): pl. 83. B [1776]. Type Locality: "...Aufenthalt in dem nördlichen Theil des stillen Meeres...westlichen Küste von Amerika... östlichen von Kamtschatka ...Inseln...Küsten unter dem 56ten Grade der Breite liegen." [N part of the Pacific. Russia, Commander and Bering Isls]. Vernacular Names: Steller Sea Lion. Synonyms: Eumetopias jubata Forster 1775; Eumetopias leonina (Pallas 1811); Eumetopias monteriensis (Gray 1859); Eumetopias stellerii (Lesson 1828). Distribution: Northern Pacific coastal regions of Canada, China (vagrant populations to Jiangsu), Japan (from Hokkaido N), Russia, USA (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California). Conservation: U.S. ESA – Threatened, except population segment west of 144° W. Long, which is Endangered; IUCN – Endangered. Discussion: The type of O. californiana Lesson, 1828, was shown by Allen (1880) to actually be Zalophus. A. monteriensis Gray, 1859, is based on P. jubata Schreber, 1776. Scheffer (1958) pointed out that jubata Forster, 1775, is invalid. Reviewed by Loughlin et al. (1987). Synonyms allocated according to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), Hall (1981), and Loughlin et al. (1987).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207