MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6949713739 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4653180

Vibilia pyripes Bovallius 1887

2003· article· en· W6949713739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMollusks and Parasites Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRostrumMargin (machine learning)Apex (geometry)Bent molecular geometryLine (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vibilia pyripes Bovallius, 1887 (figures 1, 2) Vibilia pyripes Bovallius, 1887a: 10; 1887b: 71, pl. 10, figures 23–30. Vibilia hirondellei Chevreux, 1900: 126–129, pl. 15, figure 4. Vibilia grandicornis Chevreux, 1900: 131–134, pl. 16, figure 2. Materials examined. See table 3. Description of female. Head length three-quarters height, about 0.6 times as long as pereonites 1 and 2 combined, nearly rectangular when viewed laterally. Rostrum about one-sixth as long as remainder of head and slightly bent downward. Eyes oblong (pear-shaped in male), well packed with ocelli, height about 1.6 times length which is slightly less than one-half (about two-thirds in male) as long as the head. Antenna 1 length equal to combined length of head, pereonite 1 and two-thirds of pereonite 2, flagellum twice as long as peduncle, 1.7 times as long as high. Maxilliped outer lobes narrow, more than three times as long as wide, with a few strong teeth on the proximal two-thirds of inner margin, outer margin smooth with a few fine setae. Pereon 1.4 times as long as pleon, height increasing posteriorly, pereonite 7 about 1.5 times as high as pereonite 1. Posterodistal margin of pereonites 3–7 bent posteriorly. Coxae increasing in length and height from pereonite 1 to 4, then decreasing to 7; ventral margin of coxae 5 and 6 with a notch in mid-length. Pereopod 1 simple, anterior margin of basis with a slight bulge at proximal third, propus with posterior margin finely serrated and distal margin as wide as dactyl. Pereopod 2 subchelate, carpal process reaching to one-third of propus. Pereopod 5 about 1.5 times as long as pereopod 3, basis slightly longer than ischium and merus combined, propus three-quarters as long as merus and carpus combined and slightly longer than basis. Pereopod 6 carpus, anterior margin with fine dentition and three large spines, the spines with finely branched margins distally. Pereopod 7 with complete segmentation, basis 0.6 times as long as ischium to dactyl combined, posterodistal corner with a strong protrusion reaching mid-length of merus; carpus and propus not produced at anterodistal corner; dactyl finely scaled on distal half of posterior surface. Pleon about 2.6 times as long as urosome, pleonites 1–3 subequal in length. Posterodistal corner of pleonites 1 and 2 rounded, of pleonite 3 angular. Urosomites 2 and 3 fused, laterodistal corners slightly produced. Uropod 1 protopod 1.6 times as long as exopod. Uropod 3 protopod broad, as long as wide, distally widening, as long as endopod. Telson separate from double urosomite, rounded, slightly broader than long. Size. Female: 4.80–8.72 mm; male: 2.80–7.00 mm. Distribution. Pacific Ocean: Japan; South China Sea; New Zealand. This is the first record of this species for the eastern Pacific Ocean. In the present study, this species occurred in 17 samples, mostly shallower than 250 m, with an exception at 1253– 1207 m and has a relatively wide distributional range from 20°S to 33°N and 119°W eastward to the continents of the Americas. Atlantic Ocean: 51°N– 43°S; Newfoundland; Azores. Indian Ocean: Gulf of Oman; Arabian Sea; near Equator.

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)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicMollusks and Parasites StudiesFrench-language works237,207