Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bimeria brevis Fraser, 1918c Bimeria brevis Fraser, 1918c: 338, pl. 1, figs. 2a–c. Garveia brevis.— Cairns et al., 1991: 14. Syntypes. BCPM 976-00172-001: Canada, Bay of Fundy. BCPM 976-00172-002: Canada, Bay of Fundy. Lectotype, by present designation. BCPM 976-00172-001: Canada, New Brunswick, St. Andrews, Katy Cove, on a tubulariid stem, one colony, up to 3 mm high, without gonophores; slide. Paralectotype. BCPM 976-00172-002: Canada, Bay of Fundy; slide. Type locality. Canada, New Brunswick: St. Andrews, Katy Cove, on a tubulariid (Fraser 1918c). Current status. Species inquirenda (WoRMS). Remarks. Name-bearing types were not designated in the original description of Bimeria brevis Fraser, 1918c. Specimens on two slides in the Fraser Hydroid Collection at the RBCM (BCPM 976-00172-001, BCPM 976- 00172-002) are regarded here as syntypes. These collections are recorded in the RBCM database as being from the Bay of Fundy. Notably, the type locality of the species in the original description (Katy Cove, located at St. Andrews, New Brunswick) is within the Bay of Fundy region. The only other records of the species given by Fraser (1944a) are from Cape Breton Island (Nova Scotia), Portland (Maine), and Casco Bay (Maine), all outside the stated type locality. As lectotype of the species, we designate a colony or part of a colony on one of the syntype slides (BCPM 976-00172-001). Two colony fragments are present on that slide, with the lectotype specimen occurring on the longer of two tubulariid stems. Fraser’s (1918c) account of Bimeria brevis was based on sterile and possibly juvenile material. His hydroids appear to have been bougainvilliids, but they are not referable to Bimeria Wright, 1859 because no perisarcal covering exists over the bases of the tentacles. Cairns et al. (1991, 2002) assigned the species to Garveia Wright, 1859, but that seems open to question. In WoRMS, G. brevis is justifiably listed as a taxon inquirenda.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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".