MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912467552 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3867912

Brachyiulus pusillus

2017· article· en· W6912467552 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInvertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodlandArable landHabitatRange (aeronautics)Spring (device)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

90. Brachyiulus pusillus (Leach, 1814) Iulus pusillus Leach, 1814. Brachyiulus littoralis Verhoeff, 1898. Distribution AL, AT, BA, BE, CH, DE, DK-DEN, EE, ES-CNY, ES-SPA, FR-FRA, GB-CI, GB-GRB, GB-NI, GR- GRC, HR, IE, IT-ITA, LT, LU, MC, MN, NL, PL, PT-AZO, PT-MDR, RU-KGD, SE. – Introduced into Tunisia, South Africa, Australia and North America, Habitat Often in damp areas near watercourses, meadows, marshes, marshy woodland and farmland. On afforested colliery spoil heaps with garden refuse (Decker & Hannig 2010). In Western Europe it is not usually common in woodland, much more associated with arable land and pastures. It is reputed to favour heavy soils and is probably able to withstand inundation (Jeekel & Brugge 2001). Numbers may be found in damp buildings. In the north of its range it is synanthropic. Remarks Brachyiulus pusillus adults are visible throughout the year, by far most frequently in the spring when they breed. The species has been widely dispersed by human activity, occurring in Australasia, South Africa, North and South America and on many of the Atlantic Islands (Blower 1985; Lee 2006). The Greek specimens from the Ionian area were named as the variety ionica by Strasser (1974).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyFrench-language works237,207