Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bregmaceros sp. Bregmaceros Thompson, 1840 has small and thin otoliths which are easily recognised, but their identification at species level is problematic, because specific features mainly concern the overall shape of the outline and the protruding denticles, which are often not well-preserved in the fossil material. Therefore, the identification of fossil specimens in this group is delicate and requires sufficient specimens (Přikryl et al. 2016). Our Bregmaceros otoliths (Fig. 7 M–O) are characterised by a very large, wide and triangular antero-ventral lobe, and this key feature is different from that of Bregmaceros albyi (Sauvage, 1880), a more common species reported from the Tortonian of northern Italy (e.g., Anfossi & Mosna 1969a, as Bregmaceros catulus). The shape of our Bregmaceros otoliths is actually more similar to that of Bregmaceros deklaszi Schwarzhans, 2013 (and Bregmaceros hybridus Schwarzhans, 2013, which may just reflect aspects of the variability of B. deklaszi, based on the iconographies) (see Schwarzhans 2013b: pl. 5, figs 19–26, 11–18, respectively), reported from the middle–late Miocene boundary of West Africa. But, again, the characteristic antero-ventral lobe of our specimens is still markedly larger than that of the West African species. In fact, these Tortonian otoliths do not match any of the currently known fossil species from the Mediterranean or Central Paratethys (Nolf 2013: pls 86–87; Přikryl et al. 2016), but, lacking sufficient material, we prefer to keep these specimens in open nomenclature.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".