MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968921307 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7338575

On the taxonomy of Myotis lucifugus

2022· article· en· W6968921307 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTechnology, Environment, Urban Planning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonomy (biology)Myotis lucifugusSubspeciesNomenclatureTaxonomic rank

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

### <strong>Author's note</strong>: this taxonomic decision is part of a series by members of the Global Bat Taxonomy Working Group to help settle ongoing disputes in the taxonomic literature and suggest targets for data collection. See the concise conclusion below as well as the full article with background and justification in PDF &amp; DOCX formats for download. ### <strong>RECOMMENDATION</strong> We recommend that <em>Myotis lucifigus alascensis, M. l. carissima, M. l. pernox,</em> and <em>M. l. relictus</em> should continue to be recognized as subspecies of <em>Myotis lucifugus</em>, at least until such time as more conclusive information is provided supporting their elevation to species status. This argues against the conclusions presented by Morales &amp; Carstens (2018).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.137 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it