Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pusa hispida (Schreber, 1775) —Ringed Seal Phoca hispida Schreber, 1775 p.l86 (1776 p312); Type locality- Coast of Greenland and Labrador. Phoca hispida ochotensis: Won, 1967 p.92. Pusa hispida: Won, 1968 p.339; Kim, 2004 p.195. Pusa hispida ochotensis: Kim, 2004 p.196. Range: Ringed seals rarely occur in the Yellow Sea along the Korean coast and is thus considered a vagrant species (Fig. 65). Remarks: Although recent comprehensive morphological examinations did not support division of the Arctic population into multiple subspecies (Amano et al. 2002), Berta and Churchill (2012) recommended continued recognition of Okhotsk ringed seals around Okhotsk Sea, P. h. ochotensis (Pallas, 1811). The Society for Marine Mammalogy has used ‘(Nordquist, 1889)’ as the original author and year citation for the ringed seal; however, the correct author and name for the subspecies, O. h. ochotensis is ‘(Pallas, 1811)’. Conservation status: The Ministry of Environment designated P. hispida an Endangered Species in 1997 but delisted it because of infrequent occurrences in Korea. In 2007, the Ministry of Land, Transports, and Maritime Affairs listed ringed seals as Protected Marine Species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.009 |
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".