Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tesserodon Hope, 1837 Ateuchus (Tesserodon) Hope, 1837: 55, pl. 3, fig. 15, justifiably emended to Tessarodon in an errata list issued along with the original description, but emendation not in usage (see text for details). Type species: Scarabaeus novaehollandiae Fabricius, 1775, by original monotypy. Remarks: After originally treating Tesserodon ambiguously as a subgenus (Hope 1837: p. 55) and as a full genus (pl. 3) in his review of the Linnaean and Fabrician scarabs, Hope (1838: 324) himself treated it definitively as a genus in his following year’s review of the Olivier (1789a, b) scarabs (“ Novae Hollandiae. Now the type of the genus Tesserodon, Hope ”). This has been accepted ever since. Hope (1837) remarked in the original description that, in addition to “ S. hollandiae ”, there were “three or four undescribed species in different collections” belonging to Tesserodon. While this indicated that Tesserodon was not taxonomically monospecific, nomenclaturally, it originally was, as only one nominal species (i.e., only one described, named species) was assigned to the new genus-group taxon, S. novaehollandiae. This fixed it as the type species by original monotypy under Articles 67.6 and 68.3 even though Hope (1837)—in the text (Fig. 5A–B), but not on the figure plate (Fig. 5C)—referred to it under Fabricius’s (1781) incorrect subsequent spelling hollandiae. Anisodon Hope, 1837: 34, nomen nudum, failed to satisfy Article 11.5, nec Anisodon Lartet, 1851 (valid name in Mammalia: Perissodactyla: † Chalicotheriidae), nec Anisodon Rosen, 1905 (invalid junior subjective synonym of Psammodynastes Günther, 1858; Reptilia: Serpentes: Psammodynastidae).
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".