Bibliographic record
Abstract
332. Leptoiulus montivagus (Latzel, 1884) Iulus montivagus Latzel, 1884. Iulus braueri Verhoeff, 1895. Iulus tosanus Verhoeff, 1916. Leptoiulus braueri auct. Leptoiulus weberi Verhoeff, 1927. Leptoiulus tosanus zurstrasseni Verhoeff, 1929. Leptoiulus catascaphicus Verhoeff, 1931. Leptoiulus triglavensis Strasser, 1940. Distribution AT, CH, CZ, DE, FR-FRA, IT-ITA, SI. Alpine. Habitat Alpine meadows, under stones. In Switzerland it is found in pastures and dry grassland from as low as 280 m in the north. In the south it occurs from 920 to 2860 m (Pedroli-Christen 1993). It reaches 2400 m in Slovenia, where it was found under stones and in cushions of turf (Strasser 1940). In Bavarian woods it may be found under decaying bark and below moss on blocks of granite (Schubart 1934). Kobel- Lamparski (1987) found it to be the most abundant millipede in vineyards in Kaiserstuhl, southern Germany, and gave detailed information on its population structure. Remarks Among all the species of Leptoiulus with complicated taxonomic histories, L. montivagus probably takes the prize. It seems to be a relict species surviving at high altitudes, formerly widespread during the ice age, and since then the now isolated populations on the summits of mountain chains have diversified to some degree. Regarded as highly endangered in Germany (Voigtländer et al. 2011).
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".