MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893546668 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509688

Leptochiton belknapi Dall 1878

2015· article· en· W6893546668 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeParatypePacific oceanViet namTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leptochiton belknapi Dall, 1878 Leptochiton belknapi Dall 1878: 1; Kaas & Van Belle 1987: 23, fig.10; Schwabe & Sellanes 2010: 33, fig.1L–M Leptochiton alveolus; Ferreira 1979:152, fig 10 (in part, non Chiton alveolus M.Sars MS, Lovén, 1846); Kaas & Van Belle 1985: 36, fig.14, map 6, (in part, non Chiton alveolus Lovén, 1846). Leptochiton farallonis Dall 1902: 557. Leptochiton mesogonus Dall 1902: 555. Leptochiton opacus Dall 1908: 218. Leptochiton sp. Sellanes et al. 2004: 1066. Type. Holotype (USNM 30972). Type locality. off Western Aleutian Islands, 53°08’N, 171°19’W, 1840 m depth. Material examined. Holotype of L. belknapi (USNM 30972), L. alveolus [(2 spms from the Norwegian Sea, 2 spms from Newfoundland Bank, 1 spm from off Vineyard (USNM 602353)], two syntypes of L. giganteus (ZMA); holotype L. halistreptus (USNM 10932); syntypes of L. halistreptus abbreviatus (USNM 223498); syntype of L. opacus (USNM 110664); lectotype L. japonicus (ZMHU 102038); holotype of L. luridus (USNM 109027), holotype of L. farallonis (USNM 109025) and holotype of L. mesogonus (USNM 109019)]. Peruvian and Chilean record. Sellanes et al. 2004, (as Leptochiton sp.) and Schwabe & Sellanes 2010 (from off Peru, 11°50’S to off Chile, 42°40’S). Distribution. Wide spread species, inhabits the Pacific Ocean from the Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea to North and South America’s Pacific waters southwards to 42°40’S, 200–1840 m. Remarks. Studied material showed that several species which were synonymized with L. belknapi by Kaas & Van Belle (1987) are valid. Among them are Leptochiton luridus, L. halistreptus halistreptus, L. halistreptus abbreviatus, L. giganteus, L. japonicus. Leptochiton luridus differs from L. belknapi by having three cusps in major lateral teeth of radula and dorsal scales without ribs. Leptochiton luridus belongs to the L. vitjazi group. Both subspecies of L. halistreptus halistreptus and L. halistreptus abbreviatus differ from L. belknapi by having extensive rows of gills arranged from anus to valve V and by having the tail valve wider than the head valve. Leptochiton giganteus differs from L. belknapi by having the width of the jugal sinus almost equal to the width of the apophyses (width of jugal sinus much wider than apophyses in L. belknapi), dorsal scales without ribs. Leptochiton japonicus differs from L. belknapi in having 7 instead of 3 pores in the granules and 6–8 instead of 3 ribs in dorsal scales. According to Saito (1997), L. japonicus and L. aequispinus are valid species. In my opinion, L. simplex is a synonym of L. japonicus because L. simplex has 6 ribs on the dorsal scales of the girdle and similar valves. Other species (see Kaas & Van Belle 1987) were left in the synonymy of L. belknapi. I think that some specimens from Peruvian and Chilean samples recorded by Sellanes et al. (2004) as Leptochiton sp. and by Schwabe & Sellanes (2010) as L. belknapi may belong to one of the new deep-water species, described in this article from the Peru-Chile Trench (Leptochiton sigwartae, L. mutschkeae and L. macleani). Further work beyond the scope of this paper is necessary to study the specimens by Scanning Electron Microscope.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.172 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyFrench-language works237,207