Sorex (Sorex) tundrensis Merriam 1900
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sorex (Sorex) tundrensis Merriam 1900 Sorex (Sorex) tundrensis Merriam 1900, Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., 2: 16. Type Locality: USA, Alaska, St. Michaels. Vernacular Names: Tundra Shrew. Synonyms: Sorex (Sorex) amasari Ognev 1922; Sorex (Sorex) amazari Ognev 1928; Sorex (Sorex) baikalensis Ognev 1913; Sorex (Sorex) borealis Kastchenko 1905; Sorex (Sorex) centralis Thomas 1911; Sorex (Sorex) irkutensis Ognev 1933; Sorex (Sorex) jenissejensis Dudelski 1930; Sorex (Sorex) khankae Baranova and Zaitsev 2003; Sorex (Sorex) margarita Fetisov 1950; Sorex (Sorex) middendorfii Ognev 1933; Sorex (Sorex) parvicaudatus Okhotina 1976; Sorex (Sorex) petschorae Ognev 1922; Sorex (Sorex) schnitnikovi Ognev 1922; Sorex (Sorex) sibiriensis Ognev 1922; Sorex (Sorex) transrypheus Stroganov 1956; Sorex (Sorex) ultimus G. Allen 1914; Sorex (Sorex) ussuriensis Okhotina 1983. Distribution: Sakhalin Isl; Siberia, from the Pechora River to Chukotka, south to the Altai Mtns; Mongolia and NE China; Alaska (USA); Yukon, Northwest Territories (Canada). Conservation: IUCN – Lower Risk (lc). Discussion: Subgenus Sorex, S. tundrensis group (Fumagalli et al., 1999). Youngman (1975) provided evidence that tundrensis is specifically distinct from arcticus. Palearctic populations formerly referred to arcticus were included in tundrensis by Junge et al. (1983) and Okhotina (1983). Hoffmann (1987) and van Zyll de Jong (1991 b) discussed additional aspects of its taxonomy and distribution. Karyotype variable: 2n = 31-41, FN 56-60 in Siberia, 2n = 32/33, FN = 58 in Yukon, and 2n = 32/33, FN = 62 in C Alaska. Kozlovsky (1976) found irkutensis and sibiriensis to be karyotypically distinct; possibly two sibling species occur throughout the Palearctic range. Meylan and Hausser (1991) described a karyotype from Canada that was identical to some in Siberia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".