Ophiocten affinis ? (Lutken 1858
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ophiocten affinis? (Lütken, 1858) Reports for the Azores: Ophioglypha affinis Lyman—? $ Simroth 1888: 231; Ophiura affinis (L̹tken 1858)— Pereira 1997: 333; Ophiocten affinis (L̹tken, 1858)— Micael & Costa 2010: 322; Micael et al. 2012: 3. Type locality: Norway. See: L̹tken (1858: 45–46, pl. 2, figs. 10a–b, as Ophiura affinis); Mortensen (1927a: 244–245, figs. 132, as Ophiura affinis); Sumida et al. (1998: 282–285, 295–297, fig. 9). Occurrence: North Atlantic, from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (Theroux & Wigley 1998), eastwards from Iceland, Faroe, Scandinavian and British waters (Mortensen (1927a, 1933a), along the European Shelf (Cherbonnier 1969) south to Cape Bojador (Grieg 1932), the?Azores (Simroth 1888) and Madeira (Jesus & Abreu 1998); the subspecies O. affinis simulans can be found in South Africa (Mortensen 1936). Depth: 8–550 m (Mortensen 1927a). Habitat: soft substrates, silt, sand, shingle to silt covered rocks (Grieg 1932, Picton 1993). Larval stage: lecithotrophic (Fell 1945). Remarks: the presence of Ophiocten affinis in the Azores is based on a single record by Simroth (1888). However, no additional information was given by the author and there is no trace where the specimen could be housed (or later reviewed). The presence of this species in the archipelago should be considered with caution, until new material collected in the area can corroborate this historical record.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".