Testudinella dentata Myers 1934
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testudinella dentata Myers, 1934 (Fig. 14) T. clypeata dentata after Wiszniewski (1954), T. clypeata after Koste (1978) and Segers (2007) The lorica outline is oval and truncate anteriorly. The dorsal anterior margin is convex, projecting in the form of two lobes separated by a shallow and broad median sinus; the ventral anterior margin is weakly undulate and shows a rounded median sinus bounded by two acute projections. The lateral antennae are situated slightly above the middle. Foot opening a weakly arched transversal slit, located near the posterior 1/5th of the lorica. In cross-sectional view symmetrical both dorsally and ventrally, appearing much compressed, with rounded lateral margins and slightly inflated part in the middle. Measurements. Lorica length 150 µm, lorica width 90 µm. The species was originally described from brackish water near the outlet of the Barcelona at Thomas Cove, and brackish water in Powell’s Creek, Atlantic County, New Jersey, USA. Chengalath & Koste (1988) found it in temporary water bodies of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. Koste (1978) and Jersabek et al. (2003) doubt on the taxonomic status of T. dentata and suggest that it may be a synonym of T. clypeata. However, on close examination Chengalath & Koste (1988) conclude that both species are quite distinct, based on the general shape, the shape of the anterior margins, the position of the lateral antennae, foot opening and size, and consider T. dentata to be a valid species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".