Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genus Latreillia Roux, 1830 Latreillia Roux, 1830: unnumbered page, pl. 22. — Guinot & Richer de Forges 1981: 559. — Williams 1982: 232 (synonymy and references). Proctor Gistel, 1848: ix (erroneously substituted for Latreillia [see Rathbun 1937: 73]). Latreilla [sic] – Gosliner et al. 1996: 235. TYPE SPECIES. — Latreillia elegans Roux, 1830 by monotypy. Gender: feminine. DIAGNOSIS. — Total length of each last pair of pereopods (P5) greater than merus of fourth pair (P4) (Figs 6; 10; 12); propodus of each P5 shorter or longer than carpus; conspicuous, feather-like setae on both lateral margins, distal end not conspicuously broadened; dactyli forming subchelae or trailing without forming subchela. REMARKS Williams (1982), in separating Latreillia from Eplumula, placed more importance on the morphology of the last pair of pereopods (P5) than on the nature of the dactyli of the same. Although in the two species of Eplumula the dactylus forms a subchela, the same situation is present in three of the five known species of Latreillia (L. elegans, L. metanesa and L. williamsi), while a trailing, nonsubchelate dactylus is present in the remaining two (L. pennifera and L. valida). Although the presence of a unique, non-subchelate arrangement is of generic importance, similarities in other characters (i.e. total length, shape, and setation of P5) among the seven species are significant enough that they do not merit the separation of Latreillia into two genera.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".