Bibliographic record
Abstract
Holanthus expergitus (Loven, 1871). AphialD: 526627. New record. (Fig. 4 a–c). Material examined. One preserved specimen with catalogue number (station included): 526627-B76 (B11 V 02). Description. Test outline oval in aboral view (Fig. 4a, b). Apical system ethmophract (posterior genital and ocular plates not separated by the madreporite) with four gonopores (Fig. 4a). Presence of a peripetalous fasciole positioned adapically far above the ambitus in the anterior of the test (Fig. 4a). Anal and subanal fascioles absent (Fig 4b). Petals short, posterior ones only half the size of anterior ones. Oral side flat with peristome anterior in position. Short sternum as wide as long. Distribution. Atlantic Ocean, United Kingdom, Ireland, south Iceland, Bay of Biscay, southwest of Portugal, Azores, Labrador Sea, east of North America from Massachusetts to North of Carolina, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Pacific Ocean, east and south of Japan, Indonesia, Philippine Sea, Sulu Sea, Makassar Strait, Flores Sea, Tasman Sea, southeast of Australia, New Zealand. (Loven, 1871; Mortensen 1927; Schultz, 2009; Kroh, & Mooi, 2022; OBIS, 2022) Bathymetric range. 320 m (USNM E 41727)– 4897 m (Mironov, 2014). Present study: 1706 m. Remarks. Five extant species of the genus Holanthus Lambert & Thiéry, 1924 are known to date. Two of them are close morphologically, H. expergitus and H. tenuis (A. Agassiz, 1898). In H. expergitus, the shape of the test is oval, and the anterior petals are twice as long as the posterior ones. In H. tenuis, the test is more rounded, and the sternum is long and narrow, much longer than wide. The two species have very distinct distributions (Fig. 4).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".