Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desmacella annexa Schmidt, 1870 (Figures 1, 4, Table 1) For full synonymy see Muricy et al. 2011. Specimens examined. MNRJ 2860 (Hajdu et al. 2004), São Paulo State (25º 36.988’ S; 45º 13.571’ W), Brazil, 153 m depth, REVIZEE South, trawl, station 6686 (28) (13/I/1998), det. E. Hajdu et al. External morphology (Fig. 4 A). Fragments, thinly encrusting 2 x 1 cm (length x width). Oscules were not found, vaguely hispid surface, consistency is fragile and colour cream in ethanol. Skeleton (Fig. 4 B). There is no special ectosomal skeleton. Choanosomal skeleton formed by large tylostyles making massive plumose bundles; well developed spongin fibres. Abundant sigmas (I and II) appear to be randomly distributed. Toxiform microxeas were not recognized. Spicules (Fig. 4 C–I). Tylostyles (286– 392.5 –521 x 3 – 8.1 –14 µm, length x width): long, thin, erect and smooth (Fig. 4 C–D); Sigmas I (19– 29.8 –38 µm, chord length) and Sigmas II: (9– 11.6 –14 µm, chord length) thin, abundant and terminally microspined (Fig. 4 F, G, I); Toxiform microxeas (54– 76.7 –90 µm, length) long, thin, curved and microspined (Fig. 4 E, H). Geographical distribution. Florida (Schmidt 1870), South and West Iceland (Stephens 1921), Adriatic Sea (Pansini 1987), Mediterranean (Vacelet 1969), Naples (Pulitzer-Finali 1978), Spain (Bibiloni 1981), Azores (Boury-Esnault & Lopes 1985), Barbados (van Soest & Stentoft 1988), Alboran Sea (Boury-Esnault et al. 1994; Sitj & Maldonado 2014) and Aegean Sea (Voultsiadou 2005). Brazil: São Paulo State: off Guarujá and off Ilhabela (Hajdu et al. 2004; Hajdu & Lopes 2007; Muricy et al. 2011). Remarks. Van Soest & Stentoft (1988) described the typical morphology of D. annexa. The species’ spicules consist of tylostyles, two categories of sigmas and toxiform microxeas. Here, we provide for the first time illustrations using scanning electron microscopy of D. annexa, the microspination of its sigmas and toxiform microxeas. The presence of microspination on microscleres is also observed in other species of Desmacella such as D. austini Lehnert et al. (2005, from the Pacific coast of Canada) (Lehnert et al. 2005) and Desmacella aff. pumilio (from Campos Basin, Brazil) (Cosme & Hajdu 2010). Desmacella austini has microspines on the tips of its two categories of sigmas, while Desmacella aff. pumilio has microspines on the tips of one category of sigma. We believe that this new feature probably occur in other populations of D. annexa, however this hypothesis can be confirmed only with SEM images. Records biogeographically akin to the Floridian type locality, such as the Brazilian ones (see Hajdu et al. 2004), are likely conspecific. Nevertheless, the other more disjunct records need to be reviewed with great care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".