Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almidae Duboscq, 1902 Together with Acanthodrilidae this is the most widely distributed family of earthworms (excluding exotic species), being found in tropical Africa, South-East Asia, South America and the Caribbean. It includes 64 species and four subspecies in seven genera. The genera Alma (16 spp.) and Callidrilus (3 spp.) are exclusively African, while the monospecific genus Progizzardus is unique to its type locality in India (Nair et al. 2010). The genus Glyphidrilus (36 spp.) is found mainly in Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Singapore, India, Sri Lanka), with one species G. stuhlmanni Michaelsen, present in Africa (Tanzania). In South America and the Caribbean there are three genera present: Drilocrius, with seven species spread from Costa Rica to Southeastern Brazil, Glyphidrilocrius (1 sp.) in Amazonia, and Guarani (1 sp.; see below) in southernmost Brazil and probably Uruguay (Grosso & Brown 2007). Omodeo (2000) suggested restricting Almidae to Alma, moving African Callidrilus and Asian Glyphidrilus to the Glyphidrilidae, which also included the South American Drilocrius, Glyphidrilocrius and Areco, but Guarani does not fit into either of his family definitions (Lima & Rodríguez 2007). Areco also does not fit with the Glyphidrilidae as defined by Omodeo (2000). Furthermore, Omodeo placed Criodrilus, Lutodrilus, Sparganophilus, Biwadrilus, and Komarekiona in an expanded Criodrilidae, but all of those latter are phylogenetically well-separated from Criodrilus (James & Davidson 2012) and each is the sole genus in their respective monogeneric families. At present we cannot clarify phylogenetic relationships among the genera either now or historically assigned to Almidae and/or Glyphidrilidae, because no single phylogenetic analysis includes adequate representation. For now, Almidae are placed between Glossoscolecidae s.s. and Rhinodrilidae in molecular phylogenies; where Alma and Guarani are present in the same analysis, they are sister taxa (James & Davidson 2012; Anderson et al. 2017). Will additional genera from South America (Steffen et al. 2018; Ferreira et al. 2023) change the picture? Preliminary indications say no.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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".