MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6893915699 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6008843

Haploniscus spinifer Hansen 1916

2017· article· en· W6893915699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRidgeTrough (economics)Structural basinBiogeographyIndian ocean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haploniscus spinifer Hansen, 1916 Haploniscus spinifer Hansen, 1916: 31, pl. II, figs 3a–3h.— Menzies 1962: 98.— Wolff 1962: 59.— Chardy 1974: 496, 523.— Lincoln 1985b: 662 –663.—Kussakin 1988: 396–397, figs 333–334.— Brökeland and Wägele 2004: 237 –238, fig. 2 (Electronic supplement, 4–6, figs 13–25). Material examined. BIOICE stn. 2859, RV Bjarni Saemundsson, RP sled, 29 August 1995, 61°5022N, 16°5286W, 2270 m, 2.37°C, 39 specimens (IMNH 37022); BIOICE stn. 2860, RV Bjarni Saemundsson, RP sled, 30 August 1995, 61°4343N, 16°5748W, 2295 m, 2.60°C, 57 specimens (IMNH 37023). Remarks. Hansen (1916) described H. spinifer from specimens collected at depths of 1505–3474 m in the Labrador basin and at the eastern margin of the deep Reykjanes Ridge. Here, the species was only found at two deep stations south of the Ridge in the Iceland basin (Fig. 11 C). Lincoln (1985b) did not report the species from the Rockall Trough or the Porcupine Sea-Bight. The species has a very wide distribution and has been reported in the South Atlantic Ocean (Brökeland & Wägele 2004) and in even in the Southern Ocean (see Meyer-Löbbecke et al. 2014), and has been suggested to be a potential species complex.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicMarine Biology and Ecology Research→French-language works237,207→