Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notoscopelus aff. caudispinosus (Johnson, 1863) A single, well-preserved otolith (Fig. 7I) is attributed, with some reserve, to the Recent Notoscopelus caudispinosus based on the shape of the dorsal rim that is the highest around the middle part of the otolith and on a posteriorly extended posterior part (see also Brzobohatý & Nolf 1996: pl. 7, figs 8–9). This specimen, however, shows a general outline, similar to those of fossil Notoscopelus mediterraneus (Koken, 1891) and Symbolophorus meridionalis Steurbaut, 1979 (see Brzobohatý & Nolf 1996: pl. 8, figs 1–15). Our specimen differs from those of N. mediterraneus by its more extended posterior rim, while otoliths of S. meridionalis show a flatter dorsal rim and a deeper incised excisura. A single specimen of Symbolophorus meridionalis, figured by Lin et al. (2015: fig. 3(7)), shows a much shorter outline, which suggests an attribution to the genus Myctophum Rafinesque, 1810 rather than to Symbolophorus Bolin & Wisner, 1959, and, therefore, this attribution must be considered as doubtful.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".