Ophiodes carchesium Fraser 1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ophiodes carchesium Fraser, 1914b Ophiodes carchesium Fraser, 1914b: 220, figs. 1a, b. Ophiodissa carchesium.— Fraser, 1937a: 113, pl. 23, figs. 127a, b. Hydrodendron carchesium.— Rees & Vervoort, 1987: 21. Holotype. BCPM 976-00508-001: USA, Alaska, Gulf of Alaska, SE of Trinity Islands, halibut grounds, 50 fm (91 m), 20 August 1914, on a bryozoan, one colony, in poor condition, without gonophores, coll. Dr. A. Willey; slide. Type locality. USA, Alaska: Gulf of Alaska, SE of Trinity Islands, halibut grounds, 50 fm (91 m) (Fraser 1914b). Current status. Valid, as Hydrodendron carchesium (Fraser, 1914b). Remarks. The hydroid briefly described as Ophiodes carchesium by Fraser (1914b) was found in a small collection from halibut grounds in the Gulf of Alaska, provided by Dr. Arthur Willey of McGill University, Montreal, Canada. The specimen, sterile and simple in morphology, was growing as an epizoite on a bryozoan colony. Material in the Fraser Hydroid Collection at the RBCM (BCPM 976-00508-001), comprising a single colony consistent with both the descriptive account and illustration in Fraser (1914b: figs. 1a, b), is considered by us to be the holotype by monotypy (ICZN Art. 73.1.2). The specimen and its bryozoan substrate have now slipped beyond the coverslip of the slide, but are still embedded in Canada balsam. Known only from the original account, the species is listed as Hydrodendron carchesium in Rees & Vervoort (1987), Cairns et al. (2002), and WoRMS. The specific name carchesium is a noun in apposition (Latin: a kind of drinking cup) and need not agree in gender with any generic name with which it is combined (ICZN Art. 31.2.1). The family Phylactothecidae Stechow, 1921a is recognized here as valid following Choong et al. (2018). Included within it are H. carchesium and other species of the genus Hydrodendron Hincks, 1874.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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.
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".