Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippomonavella sp. (Fig. 3D–F, Table 5) Material examined. SAMC-A094529, SAMC-A094632, Jeffreys Bay (34°01′35.5″S, 24°55′52.2″E), 3 August 2020. All material was collected by K.C.K. Ma and is kept dry. Additional comparative material examined: SAMC-A029050, holotype of Hippomonavella lingulata Boonzaaier-Davids, Florence & Gibbons, 2020 (preserved in ethanol), station AFR273 A31624 (33°48′24″S, 25°56′48″E), Algoa Bay, Southeast Coast, South Africa, South Coast Demersal Survey, trawl, depth 45 m, 21 April 2011. Remarks. This species is confidently placed in Hippomonavella based on the presence of a typical bitectiporid orifice, median suboral avicularium directed proximally, marginal areolae, and the absence of a lyrula. It differs from known Hippomonavella species recorded from South Africa, namely H. formosa (MacGillivray, 1887) and H. lingulata, in the shape, size, and position of the median suboral avicularium, as well as the orifice shape, suggesting a new record of this genus from South Africa. Comparing measurements of the autozooids showed that Hippomonavella sp. (N T = 20; mean length 0.57 mm by mean width 0.35 mm, Table 5) is smaller than H. lingulata (N T = 14–17; mean length 0.78 mm by mean width 0.50 mm, Boonzaaier-Davids et al. 2020, p. 122). T In this study, five colonies of Hippomonavella sp. were found on two individuals of M. galloprovincialis; it has previously been found forming encrustations on other shells and rocks in c. 600 km farther west False Bay (Boonzaaier 2017). A separate manuscript revising the superfamily Smittinoidea in South Africa is in preparation and will include the description of this new species, the type material of which will be selected from samples from False Bay sites that yielded better preserved specimens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 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".