Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heptacarpus kincaidi (Rathbun, 1902) (Fig. 20G) Spirontocaris kincaidi Rathbun, 1902a: 899; 1904: 95, fig. 43. — Schmitt 1921: 63, fig. 40. Heptacarpus kincaidi. — Holthuis 1947: 12. — Kozloff 1974: 167. — Word & Charwat 1976: 119. — Butler 1980: 218. — Wicksten 1990b: 594. — Jensen 1995: 47, fig. 78. — Chace 1997: 44. Diagnosis. Rostrum moderately deep, exceeding antennular peduncle, with 5 or 6 dorsal, 5 or 6 ventral teeth; apex usually bifid. Second, third segments of antennular peduncle with 1 spine each, stylocerite reaching end of second segment. Third maxilliped with epipod. No epipods on pereopods. Pereopods 3–5 slender, with spinose dactyls; merus of pereopod 3 with 2–4 spines, pereopod 4, with 2 or 3 spines, pereopod 5, with 2 or 3 spines. Pleura of abdominal somites 1–4 rounded, 5 with sharp ventral point. Dorsal posterior margin of somite 3 forming cap-like lobe. Telson with 4 pairs dorsolateral spines. Female total length 35 mm, male not reported. Color in life. Mostly transparent, with red spots and bands on body, and appendages (Butler 1980). Rostrum with yellowish stripe, body marked with red and streaked with white and gray-green patches (Jensen 1995). Habitat and depth. Subtidal rocky areas, in association with sea anemones, Cribrinopsis fernaldi Siebert & Spaulding 1976; and Urticina crassicornis (O.F. Müller, 1776) (Jensen 1995), 10– 183 m. Range. Discovery Passage, east coast of Vancouver I., British Columbia to San Pedro, California. Type locality Santa Cruz, California.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.017 | 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".