Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anoplodactylus batangensis (Helfer, 1938) For older synonyms and references, see Müller (1993: 220). Anoplodactylus batangensis: Müller and Krapp, 2009: 88-90, figure 47; Lucena et al. 2015: 430-432, figures 1–5. Material examined: Alagoas: (UFPB.PYC–173) 2 ♂♂ and 1 f ♀, Pontal do Peba, intertial, 15 Jun. 2014, coll. R.A. Lucena, J. Prata and J.P. de Araújo. Paraíba: (UFPB. PYC–150) 1 ♀, Coqueirinho, intertidal, 17 Apr. 2014, coll. R.A. Lucena; J. Prata and J.P. Araújo. Rio Grande do Norte: (UFPB.PYC–144) 1 ♀, Tourinhos, 16 Jul. 2014, coll. R.A. Lucena and L.M. Falkenberg. Ceará: (UFPB.PYC–135) 3 ♂♂, Praia da Redonda, 09 Aug. 2014, coll. R.A. Lucena and J. Prata. Diagnosis: Animal small. Segmentation incomplete, absent between segments 3 and 4. Chelae small with short fingers. Proboscis cone-shaped and curved upwards. Lateral processes with a rounded dorsal tubercle. Distal region of the 2 anterior lateral processes more expanded than the 2 posterior lateral processes. Legs short. Tube of cement gland narrow, formed by small transversal rings. Auxiliary claws very small or absent. Distribution: Circumtropical. Brazil (Bahia, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte, Ceará), Curaçao, Venezuela, Caribbean coast of Colombia, Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Panama, Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, Belize, Gulf coast of Mexico, Barbados, Martinique, Guadalupe, Antigua, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Ilhas Cayman, Bahamas, USA (Flórida), Bermuda, Cameroon, Madagascar, Tanzania, Australia, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Sulu Sea, Tonga (Müller, 1993; Arango, 2003; Müller and Krapp, 2009). Depth: Up to 40 m deep. Remarks: Easily recognized by the shape of the proboscis (styliform and directed upwards) and by the structure of the cement gland (formed by transversal rings) (Child, 1996; Müller and Krapp, 2009). The first record for Brazil was given by Lucena et al. (2015), for the States of Pernambuco and Paraíba. Subsequently it was recorded for the coast of Bahia (Lucena and Christoffersen, 2017), which is the most southern occurrence in the southern Atlantic. Here we provide the first references for the States of Alagoas, Rio Grande do Norte, and Ceará.
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) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".