Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alamprops quadriplicatus (Smith, 1879) n. comb. Lamprops quadriplicatus Smith, 1879: 118–120. Type material. Syntypes: in part, in USNM: 10499, ovigerous female; 34874, subadult female; 34884, 2 subadult females; 34885, subadult male; 36639, subadult male; 44132, preparatory female; 44133, preparatory male. Gloucester Harbor, Grand Banks, Cape Cod Bay, Casco Bay. Diagnosis. Carapace with 4 lateral ridges; eyelobe not extending to anterior border of pseudorostrum. Telson with 2 pairs of lateral setae, 5 terminal setae, central seta and outermost pair subequal. Uropod peduncle with 7 medial setae; uropod exopod article 1 0.9 length of article 2. Male with long antennal flagellum. Depth. 4–104 m. Distribution. Western boreal Atlantic. Remarks. This species has been problematic. The original description by Smith is from the western North Atlantic, but several subspecies have been ascribed to this species from the North Pacific, specifically krasheninnikovi from the boreal North Pacific, longispina from Peter the Great Bay and Hokkaido, Japan, as well as quadriplicatus from the Pacific coast of Canada (Derzhavin 1926; Hart 1930; Zimmer 1943). Given the limited dispersal capabilities of cumaceans, and the genetic differentiation that has been described between very close populations in South Africa (Teske 2006), it is unlikely that all of these records represent a single species. As the subspecies are morphologically distinguishable from quadriplicatus, they were returned (krasheninnikovi) or elevated (longispinus) to the rank of species. Based on color differences, Zimmer (1980) suggested that Hart’s “ L. quadriplicatus ” is unlikely to be the same species found on the western North Atlantic coasts of Canada and the United States. It is possible that Hart’s quadriplicatus is what was described as A. augustinensis (Gerken, 2005).
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".