Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptotis parva (Say 1823) [Sorex] parvus Say 1823, in: James, Account Exped. Pittsburgh to Rocky Mtns, Vol. 1: 163. Type Locality: "Engineer Cantonment," west bank of Missouri River; restricted by Jones (1964:68) to USA, Nebraska, Washington Co., approximately 2 mi. (3.2 km) east Ft. Calhoun. Vernacular Names: North American Least Shrew. Subspecies:: Subspecies Cryptotis parva subsp. parva Say 1823 Subspecies Cryptotis parva subsp. berlandieri Baird 1858 Subspecies Cryptotis parva subsp. floridana Merriam 1895 Subspecies Cryptotis parva subsp. pueblensis Jackson 1933 Subspecies Cryptotis parva subsp. soricina Merriam 1895 Distribution: Extreme SE Canada through EC and SW USA and Mexico S to Chiapas and W to Nayarit. Conservation: IUCN – Lower Risk (lc). Discussion: Reviewed by Whitaker (1974, Mammalian Species No. 43), who recognized 9 subspecies, 5 of which occur in Middle America (Choate, 1970). Woodman (2002) concluded that orophila is a diagnosable species; see under that name. The remaining taxa are tentatively assigned to the five subspecies noted here (Carraway, pers. comm., 2003; Woodman, pers. comm., 2002). Some of these taxa may in fact represent good species. Karyotypes from Missouri and Texas count 2n = 52, FN = 54 (Genoways et al., 1977).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.008 |
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".