MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931865582 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5968585

Clytia longitheca Fraser 1914

2018· article· en· W6931865582 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntipodesSquare (algebra)Population

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clytia longitheca Fraser, 1914a Campanularia paulensis Vänhoffen, 1910: 298, figs. 19a, b. Clytia longitheca Fraser, 1914a: 137 (footnote). Campanularia longitheca Fraser, 1914a: 137, pl. 11, figs. 32A–D. Clytia (?) paulensis.— Stechow, 1919: 45. Syntypes. BCPM 976-00382-001: Canada, British Columbia, between Round Island and entrance to Boat Harbour, 18 June 1913, 15–25 fm (27–46 m), rocky; dry. BCPM 976-00383-001: Canada, British Columbia, entrance of Whaleboat Passage, 28 July 1913, 15–30 fm (27–55 m); dry. BCPM 976-00384-001: Canada, British Columbia, near Round Island in Dodd Narrows; slide. BCPM 976-00384-002: Canada, British Columbia, near Round Island in Dodd Narrows; slide. BCPM 976-00385-001: Canada, British Columbia, Nanoose Bay, outside Entrance Rock, 31 July 1914, 10–20 fm (18–37 m), muddy or sandy, with gonangia (Arai 1977); dry. Lectotype, by present designation. BCPM 976-00384-002: Canada, British Columbia, near Round Island in Dodd Narrows, one colony, up to ca. 4 mm high, in only fair condition, without gonothecae; slide. Paralectotypes. BCPM 976-00382-001: Canada, British Columbia, between Round Island and entrance to Boat Harbour, 18 June 1913, 15–25 fm (27–46 m), rocky; dry. BCPM 976-00383-001: Canada, British Columbia, entrance of Whaleboat Passage, 28 July 1913, 15–30 fm (27–55 m); dry. BCPM 976-00384-001: Canada, British Columbia, near Round Island in Dodd Narrows, one colony, in only fair condition, without gonothecae; slide. BCPM 976-00385-001: Canada, British Columbia, Nanoose Bay, outside Entrance Rock, 31 July 1914, 10–20 fm (18-37 m), muddy or sandy, with gonothecae; dry. Type locality. Canada, British Columbia: near Round Island in Dodd Narrows (Fraser 1914a). Current status. Invalid. Remarks. Fraser did not designate a name-bearing type of Clytia longitheca in his original description of the species. In choosing a lectotype, we examined several syntypes of this hydroid in the Fraser Hydroid Collection at the RBCM (BCPM 976-00382-001, BCPM 976-00383-001, BCPM 976-00384-001, BCPM 976-00384-002, BCPM 976-00385-001). No other type material is known to exist. Hydroids in three of those collections (BCPM 976-00382-001, BCPM 976-00383-001, BCPM 976-00385-001), formerly in fluid preservative, are now dry and in very poor condition. Those on the two slides (BCPM 976-00384-001, BCPM 976-00384-002) are better, but still only marginally satisfactory. As the lectotype, we selected the colony on one of those slides (BCPM 976-00384- 002), with the other (BCPM 976-00384-001) assigned paralectotype status. Dry samples of the species, mentioned above, are included as paralectotypes. Fraser (1914a) intended at first to assign this species to Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, as C. longitheca. After the manuscript had gone to press, he discovered material with gonothecae bearing nascent medusae, and in a footnote of the published paper correctly assigned it instead to Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, as C. longitheca. Calder (1971) and Cairns et al. (2002) regarded Clytia longitheca Fraser, 1914a as a probable synonym of C. paulensis (Vänhoffen, 1910). Peña Cantero & García Carrascosa (2002) treated the two as conspecific, an opinion currently upheld in WoRMS. An extensive synonymy of C. paulensis was given by Medel & Vervoort (2000).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207