Dichelyne robustus (Van Cleave & Mueller, 1932) Mueller 1933
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dichelyne robustus (Van Cleave & Mueller, 1932) Mueller, 1933 Synonym: Dacnitoides robusta Van Cleave & Mueller, 1932 Description (after Van Cleave & Mueller 1932). With characteristics of the genus. Body robust, with conspicuous cuticular thickening from oral region to beyond limit of oesophagus. Prominent pair of amphids or cephalic papillae near posterior limit of oesophagus. Oesophagus 0.38–0.43 long. Ventral intestinal caecum extends anteriorly almost to buccal cavity (Fig. 95 A). Males: 4.25–4.50 long; width about 0.32. Pre-cloacal sucker absent. Four pairs of pre-cloacal and four pairs of post-cloacal papillae. One median and three pairs of lateral papillae just anterior to cloaca (Fig. 95 B). Spicules relatively short; when withdrawn they appear tubular but when extruded are broad, ribbon-like, with frilled tips. Gubernaculum apparently absent. Females: about 5.0 long; width 0.47–0.51. Ovarian coils extend almost to anterior end of body (Fig. 93 A). Vulva short distance behind mid-body. Anus about 0.15 from tail tip. Pair minute lateral papillae in middle of postcloacal region. Tail bears spine with “the structure of a sensory papilla” (Fig. 95 C). Comments: the original description of D. robustus is inadequate and, according to Caspeta-Mandujano et al. (1999), type specimens are not available in the US National Parasite Collection, Beltsville, Maryland—collections that have been transferred to the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History (Washington, DC, USA). It seems that Maggenti (1971) was not first to transfer Dacnitoides robusta to Dichelyne as “ Dichelyne robusta ” [= Dichelyne robustus]. The n.comb. appears to have been first proposed by Mueller (1933). Site: intestinal lumen Hosts: Ameiurus melas (2); Ameiurus nebulosus (1) Distribution: Manitoba, Ontario Records: 1. Bangham 1955 (ON); 2. Choudhury & Nadler 2016 (MB)
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".