Rhizorhagium roseum M. Sars 1874
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhizorhagium roseum M. Sars, in G.O. Sars, 1874 Fig. 12 Rhizorhagium roseum M. Sars, in G.O. Sars, 1874: 129.— Rees & Rowe, 1969: 10. Perigonimus roseus.— Lönnberg, 1902: 173.— Jäderholm, 1909: 46, pl. 3, fig. 7.— Jägerskiöld, 1971: 64. Type locality. Norway: Mangerfjord, Bognestrømmen, 20 fm (37 m) (Rees 1956b: 114). Museum material. Kosterhavet, 58°53.093’N, 11°05.668’E, 20–30 m, 09.ix.2010, biological dredge, R / V Nereus, two colonies, up to 5 mm high, on stems of Tubularia indivisa and Lafoea gracillima, without gonophores, ROMIZ B3909. Remarks. Gonophores were lacking in studied material, but the trophosome of Rhizorhagium roseum M. Sars, in G.O. Sars, 1874, with its stolonal habit, long hydrocaulus, thin pseudohydrotheca, single tentacular whorl, and nipple-shaped hypostome, as well as its reddish to pinkish hydranths that bend over when disturbed, is distinctive among hydroids in the biogeographic region. A detailed account of this small species, from boreal and subarctic waters on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, has recently been given by Schuchert (2007). Rees (1956b) examined type material of Rhizorhagium roseum and concluded from the original label that it was from “Bongnestrømmen” (Bognestrømmen) in the Mangerfjord, Norway. In addition to its occurrence on the west coast of Sweden (e.g., Jäderholm 1909, as Perigonimus roseus), R. roseum has been reported from the Oslofjord, Norway (Christiansen 1972). Reported distribution. West coast of Sweden.—Kosterfjord to Gullmarfjord (Rees & Rowe 1969). Elsewhere.—North Atlantic from the Barents and White seas to western Scotland in Europe (Schuchert 2007), and from northern Foxe Basin in the Canadian Arctic to Buzzard’s Bay, Massachusetts, in eastern North America (Calder 2004); eastern North Pacific from Alaska to southern Vancouver Island (Fraser 1944, as Garveia groenlandica; Brinckmann-Voss 1996).
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".