Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sigmops bathyphilus (Vaillant, 1884) (Fig. 4D) Diagnosis. Sigmops bathyphilus can be distinguished from congeners by the presence of adipose fin; anal-fin origin in line with dorsal-fin origin; 10–14 pectoral-fin rays; 11–15 dorsal-fin rays; 7–9 pelvic-fin rays; 21–26 anal-fin rays; 28–32 gill rakers; no photophores on isthmus; two rows (lateral and ventral) of minute and obscure photophores; IC 32–38; OA 14–16, in an irregular row (Grey, 1964; Mukhacheva, 1972; Kenaley, Stewart, 2015c; Coad, 2018a). Geographical distribution. Circumglobal between 70ºN and 45ºS, except the western Indian Ocean (Grey, 1964; Schaefer et al., 1986a; Pequeño, 1989; Hutchins, 2001; Møller et al., 2010; Kenaley, Stewart, 2015c; Béarez et al., 2017; Sutton et al., 2020). In the western Atlantic, the species is reported from off Greenland, Canada, United States, the Bermudas and the Caribbean Sea, and off Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil (Mukhacheva, 1972; Grey, 1964; Harold, 2003; Moore et al., 2003; Costa, Mincarone, 2010; Møller et al., 2010; Judkins, Haedrich, 2018). Here we report on one specimen of S. bathyphilus collected off Rio Grande do Norte State, near the seamounts of the region, between depths of 700 and 1,113 m (Fig. 3C). Specimen examined. 1: NPM 4764, 1 (155 mm), AB2#59A.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".