Hydractinia laevispina Fraser 1922
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydractinia laevispina Fraser, 1922a Hydractinia laevispina Fraser, 1922a: 97, pl. 1, figs. 1–6. Syntypes. BCPM 976-00220-001: Canada, British Columbia, Gabriola Passage, 29 June 1921, 18 m; dry. Type locality. Canada, British Columbia: Gabriola Pass, western end (Fraser 1922a). Current status. Valid. Remarks. Collection data accompanying material in the Fraser Hydroid Collection at the RBCM (BCPM 976- 00220-001) accord with those given in the original description of Hydractinia laevispina by Fraser (1922a). In the absence of a type designation of the species by Fraser (1922a), those specimens are syntypes. We have not designated a lectotype from the available material because it is now dry and in very poor condition. Both male and female colonies of the species, found growing on shells of a barnacle (“ Balanus aquilla ” = Menesiniella aquila), were observed and described in Fraser’s (1922a) original account. Hydractinia laevispina is considered a valid species (Brinckmann-Voss 1996; Cairns et al. 2002; Mills et al. 2007; Miglietta et al. 2009).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".