Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthenolabus canadensis (Cresson, 1877) (Figures 9, 10) Platylabus canadensis Cresson, 1877: 200 (descr., key); Cresson 1887: 191 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 781 (cat.); Bradley 1903: 282 (distr., key, fig.); Berthoumieu 1904: 57 (cat.); Cresson 1916: 23 (type); Johnson 1927: 143 (distr.); Strickland 1946: 41 (distr.); Townes 1944: 311 (cat.); Townes and Townes 1951: 280 (distr., cat.). Asthenolabus canadensis Heinrich 1962b: 776 (descr., distr., neallotype designation, key); Carlson 1979: 546 (cat., distr.); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 673 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Lectotype ♀ (ANSP). Cresson (1877, p. 200) described Platylabus canadensis from ‘Hab.– Canada’ without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Cresson (1916, p. 23) in his list of types, simply reported the type to be a female and in ‘ I n good condition’, without clarifying the number of specimens. Townes (1944, p. 311) and Townes and Townes (1951, p. 280) did not specify any number of specimens either. Later on, Heinrich (1962b, p. 776) referred to the specimen as the ‘Holotypus’. Carlson (1979, p. 317) expressed the assumption that Cresson (1916) ‘indicated which single specimen was to be regarded as the type for each; thus he selected lectotypes for those cases in which he had described a species from more than one specimen’. Hopper (1984, p. 968) reported being unable to see how it can be claimed that Cresson (1916) indicated a single specimen to be the type. This statement contradicted Cresson’s (1916, p. 1) own statement that ‘In selecting the single type the author has been governed by the present condition of the original material, and has always selected the perfect, or more nearly perfect specimen’ and suggests that Hopper (1984) overlooked this clear indication of Cresson’s (1916) intention to select a single name-bearing type (i.e. a lectotype in the modern sense). Cresson’s (1916) lectotype designation was valid and no subsequent lectotype designation has any validity (ICZN 1999, Article 74.1.1). The fact that the selected specimen eventually could no longer be traced, as suggested by various subsequent authors (Heinrich 1962b, p. 780; Hopper 1984), could be explained by collection mismanagement and has no influence on the validity of the lectotype selection. Only a careful study of Cresson’s collection can provide more insights. Heinrich’s (1962b, p. 776) employment of the term ‘holotypus’ is in error.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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.
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".