MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6912496814 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5185042

Macrodactylus nigrinus Philippi 1864

2008· article· en· W6912496814 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusionType localityRange (aeronautics)Type (biology)Taxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synonym. Macrodactylus nigrinus Philippi, 1864: 443 (new synonym). Type locality. Chile: VII Región del Maule: Linares: Estero Leiva (based on the neotype). The original type locality was “ Chile.” Type series. Neotype male (Fig. 10) at MNNC, same specimen as the neotype for Macrodactylus farinosus (see label data above). Neotype here designated. Distribution (Fig. 24). Chile: IV Región de Coquimbo, Región Metropolitana, VII Región del Maule, VIII Región del Biobío. One specimen examined was labeled from Aysen km 50, Coyhaique. This locality should be considered dubious as it is far outside the known range for this commonly encountered species. Remark. Color variation, variation in setal pattern, and incomplete specimens seem to have led Philippi (1864) to believe that Macrodactylus farinosus, M. crassipes, and M. nigrinus were different species. I have examined over 170 specimens of Macrodactylus farinosus and found the variation within this species to encompass Philippi’s (1864) original descriptions of all three species mentioned above. Because I found no evidence to suggest that more than one species is represented within the series I examined, I here synonymize the three Philippi names. I selected a single specimen as the neotype for each of the three names to make them objective synonyms and avoid further confusion over these names.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicAmphibian and Reptile Biology→French-language works237,207→