Sorex rohweri R. L.. Rausch, Feagin & V. R. Rausch 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
59. Olympic Shrew Sorex rohweri French: Musaraigne de Rohwer / German: RohwerSpitzmaus / Spanish: Musarana de Olympic Other common names: Rohwer's Shrew Taxonomy. Sorex rohwer: R. L.. Rausch, Feagin & V. R. Rausch, 2007, “ Olympic Peninsula, Washington State, near Quilcene, Penny Creek, at lat. 47°51’ N, long. 122°57W.” Sorex rohweri was only recently described as a distinct species from S. cinereus (which it was originally misidentified as) and is in the S. cinereus group and subgenus Ofisorex. S. rohweri seems to represent a basal lineage in the S. cinereus group (¢.870.000 years ago) and probably diverged early in the evolutionary history of the group. Monotypic. Distribution. SW Canada (SW British Columbia) and NW USA (W Washington and NW Oregon). Descriptive notes. Head-body 47-69 mm, tail 37-49 mm, hindfoot 10-13 mm. No specific data are available for body weight. The Olympic Shrew is small to mediumsized and externally similar to the Masked Shrew (S. cinereus). Dorsum is dark brown, and venter is slightly lighter. Tail averages 78% (63-100%) of head-body length and is uniformly dark brown. Teeth are pigmented dark red and are typically paler than in the Masked Shrew and Vagrant Shrew (S. vagrans). Upper incisors of the Olympic Shrew have wider interdenticular space (being more V-shaped) than in the Masked Shrew. There are five unicuspids, gradually getting slightly smaller from first to fourth, with fifth being minute compared with the other four. Habitat. Primarily lowland mature stands in temperate moist forests from sea level up to elevations of ¢.700 m. Olympic Shrews are also occasionally found in areas in which forests have been cleared or degraded. Food and Feeding. No information. Breeding. No information. Activity patterns. No information. Movements, Home range and Social organization. No information. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red List. The Olympic Shrew has a relatively wide distribution and can be found in disturbed habitats, indicating that it is tolerant of human activity. Very little is known of its ecology. Bibliography. Cassola (2017a), Hope et al. (2012), Nagorsen & Panter (2009), Rausch et al. (2007), Woodman & Fisher (2016).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
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".