Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ophiodes corrugata Fraser, 1936a Ophiodes corrugata Fraser, 1936a: 504, figs. 2A, B. Ophiodissa corrugata.— Fraser, 1937a: 113, pl. 23, figs. 128a–c. Hydrodendron corrugatum.— Rees & Vervoort, 1987: 22. Syntypes. BCPM 976-00509-001: Canada, British Columbia, Houston Stewart Channel; slide. Lectotype, by present designation. RBCM 976-00509-002: Canada, British Columbia, Queen Charlotte Islands (= Haida Gwaii), Houston Stewart Channel, off Rose Harbour, 30 fm (55 m), June-early September 1935, one colony fragment (on the left side of the slide), 1.8 mm long, in good condition, without gonophores; slide. Paralectotypes. BCPM 976-00509-001: Canada, British Columbia, Queen Charlotte Islands (=Haida Gwaii), Houston Stewart Channel, off Rose Harbour, 30 fm (55 m), June-early September 1935, several fragments mounted with lectotype, in good condition, without gonophores; slide. Type locality. Canada, British Columbia: Queen Charlotte Islands (= Haida Gwaii), Houston Stewart Channel, off Rose Harbour, 30 fm (55 m) (Fraser 1936a). Current status. Valid, as Hydrodendron corrugatum (Fraser, 1936a). Remarks. (Fraser 1936a) established Ophiodes corrugata based on sterile material. Several colonies appear to have been available to him in describing the species (see Fraser 1936a, 504; 1947a: 281). Specimens, taken to be syntypes, exist on a slide at the RBCM (BCPM 976-00509-001). No other types are known to exist. As lectotype, we have selected a 1.8 mm-long specimen with several hydrothecae and nematothecae. That colony (RBCM 976- 00509-002) is on the left side of the slide, with all others mounted with it constituting paralectotypes (BCPM 976- 00509-001). The species was reported again, but not described, from San Miguel Island, California (Fraser 1948). Rees & Vervoort (1987), Cairns et al. (2002), and WoRMS refer to this hydroid under the binomen Hydrodendron corrugatum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".