Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus Kerr 1792
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus Kerr 1792 Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus Kerr 1792, Animal Kingdom: 206. Type Locality: Canada, Ontario, Fort Severn. Vernacular Names: Cinereus Shrew. Synonyms: Sorex (Otisorex) cooperi Bachman 1837; Sorex (Otisorex) forsteri Richardson 1828; Sorex (Otisorex) frankstounensis Peterson 1926; Sorex (Otisorex) idahoensis Merriam 1891; Sorex (Otisorex) nigriculus Green 1932; Sorex (Otisorex) personatus I. Geoffroy 1827; Sorex (Otisorex) platyrhinus (De Kay 1842). Subspecies:: Subspecies Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus subsp. cinereus Kerr 1792 Subspecies Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus subsp. acadicus Gilpin 1867 Subspecies Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus subsp. fontinalis Hollister 1911 Subspecies Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus subsp. hollisteri Jackson 1900 Subspecies Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus subsp. lesueurii Duvernoy 1842 Subspecies Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus subsp. miscix Bangs 1899 Subspecies Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus subsp. ohionensis Bole and Moulthrop 1942 Subspecies Sorex (Otisorex) cinereus subsp. streatori Merriam 1895 Distribution: North America throughout Alaska and Canada and southward along the Rocky and Appalachian Mtns to 45°. Conservation: IUCN – Lower Risk (lc). Discussion: Type species of subgenus Otisorex, and of S. cinereus group. Does not occur in Siberia as previously suggested; the taxa haydeni, jacksoni, ugyunak, portenkoi, leucogaster, beringianus, and camtschatica have been included previously but are now considered as separate species; see comments under these taxa and Junge and Hoffmann (1981, and references therein), van Zyll de Jong (1982, 1991 b), van Zyll de Jong and Kirkland (1989), and Pavlinov and Rossolimo (1987). S. fontinalis was separated from cinereus by Kirkland (1977), Junge and Hoffmann (1981), and Jones et al. (1992), but is considered, together with lesueurii, as a subspecies (van Zyll de Jong and Kirkland, 1989). However, George's (1988) data indicate it is a sister taxon to both cinereus and haydeni. Paraphyly and/or mtDNA introgression of cinereus and haydeni documented by Stewart and Baker (1994, 1997) and Brunet et al. (2002). Genetic relations of the entire group studied by Demboski and Cook (2003). Karyotype has 2n = 60, FN = 70. The name fimbripes Bachman, 1837 is usually included in the synonymy of cinereus, but Handley and Varn (1994) pointed out that Bachman's description resembles Nectogale elegans rather than Sorex cinereus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.381 | 0.228 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".