Notomastus lineatus Claparede 1870
Bibliographic record
Abstract
26. Notomastus lineatus Claparède, 1870 Notomastus lineatus Claparède, 1870: 18 –20, pl. 27, fig. 4.— Fauvel 1927: 145, fig. 51a–i.— Berkeley & Berkeley 1932: 674.— Ewing 1984: 14.24, 14.18a–e.— Bastida-Zavala 1993: 22.— Hernández-Alcántara & Solís-Weiss 1998: 712; 1999: 27 (partim).— Dean 2001: 80; 2004: 137.— Çinar 2005: 150.—García-Garza & de León-González 2011: 42.—Capaccioni- Azzati & El Haddad 2015: 314 –318, fig. 130A–E. Notomastus sarsii Claparède, 1864: 511, pl. 4, fig. 8, pl. 8, fig. 7.— Eisig 1887: 864. Notomastus (Clistomastus) lineatus.— Eisig 1887: 811, pl. 1, fig. 1, pl. 2, figs 8.18, 22–26, pl. 13, figs 8–9, pl. 33, figs 1–3, pl. 34, figs 1–6, pl. 35, fig. 1.— Hartman 1947: 419, pl. 46, figs 1–2; 1969: 395, figs 1–5. Notomastus near lineatus.— Green 2002: 301, fig. 19a–m. Type material: Not found. Type locality: Mediterranean Sea, Italy, Gulf of Naples. Records: France (Fauvel 1927); Iberian Peninsula (Capaccioni-Azzati & El Haddad 2015); Canada (Berkeley & Berkeley 1932); California (Hartman 1947, 1969); Northern Gulf of Mexico (Ewing 1984); Pacific Ocean, Costa Rica (Dean 2001, 2004); Indian Ocean (Green 2002). Remarks: Notomastus lineatus is considered a cosmopolitan species (Capaccioni-Azzati & El Haddad 2015), but the revision of all these records is necessary to confirm its wide distribution.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".