Heterolepidoderma ocellatum Metschnikoff 1865
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterolepidoderma ocellatum (Metschnikoff, 1865) (Figure 9) Localities. Among Sphagnum spp., Saltö, Bohuslän (N 58º 52’ 21’’; E 11º 07’ 34’’); Freshwater Sphagnum spp. rockpool, Kristineberg, Bohuslän (N 58º 14’ 50’’; E 11º 26’ 22’’); Freshwater Sphagnum spp. rockpool, Islandsberg, Bohuslän (N 58º 12’ 38’’; E 11º 25’ 09’’); Small pond, Askö, Södermanland (N 58º 49’ 23’’; E 17º 38’ 32’’). Material. 14 specimens. TL, 114–127 µm; FL, 14–15 µm; AL, 7–8 µm; PhL, 31–34 µm; MD, 4–5 µm; DC, 14–17; DR, 20–22; TS, 5– 6 x 2–3 µm; VTS, 5– 6 x 2–3. A relatively small sized species, with five-lobed head and a pair of ocellar granules. Sporadic absence of ocellar granules have been reported in some populations (Schwank 1990; Fregni et al. 1998). Two pairs of sensory bristles present, each of the posterior pair anchored by a double-keeled scale. Dorsal body surface covered by elongated elliptical keeled scales, smaller in size in head and neck regions. Interciliary area naked except for a pair of keeled terminal scales and 1–2 transverse rows of 3–4 keeled scales. Pharynx with small swellings at both ends. Two of the Swedish specimens were in post-parthenogenetic phase with X-organ and sperm present (Figure 9 A). Another peculiarity is that several specimens had more or less well developed short ventrolateral spines. In one specimen, the area between the edges of the posterior lateral parts of the scale appeared to be depressed giving the appearance of a tri-lobed scale. The keels were not modified in this part but instead gave the impression of a short spine. Whether the keel was actually in contact with the depressed area could not be determined. This species is widely distributed in Europe (see e. g. Greuter 1917; Mola 1932; Remane 1935 –36; Valkanov 1937; Rudescu 1967; Martin 1981; Schwank 1990; Kisielewski 1998) and is also reported from Canada (Schwank 1990), United States (Schwank 1990), Japan (Saito 1937) and Brazil (Kisielewski 1991).
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".