Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erpobdella punctata (Leidy 1870) Common name: Tiger leech General distribution: Nearctic (Figures 2 G, 4C, 5, Tables 1, 2). Newfoundland: Survey: Site 1 (CMNA 2006–0025), Site 2 (CMNA 2006–0026), Site 7 (CMNA 2006– 0027), Site 10 (CMNA 2006–0028), Site 12 (CMNA 2006–0029), Site 13 (CMNA 2006–0030), Site 14 (CMNA 2006–0031), and Site 15 (CMNA 2006–0032); Museum specimen: CMNA 1978–0344; Literature: Pawlowski (1948) at Corner Brook, Deer Lake, and Terra Nova; Gates and Moore (1970) at Lily Pond; Pickavance (1971) as Erpobdella sp. in Rennies River, St. John’s; Davies (1973) at Rocky Harbour. Labrador: Survey: Site 24 (CMNA 2006–0033); St. Pierre and Miquelon: Literature: Pawlowski (1948) at two stations. Notes on the species. Figure 5 shows the pigmentation patterns of E. punctata in Newfoundland. Specimens of E. punctata from Sites 14 (Avalon Peninsula) and 15 (Burin Peninsula) had a distinct pigmentation pattern not previously noted in the Great Basin (Hovingh 2004) or illustrated by Klemm (1985: Fig.7.97). Some specimens (Figure 5 C) possessed an inner para-medial row which combine across the median and provide an appearance of a single broad dorsal-median strip (the “mid-dorsal form”). The variations at Sites 1 and 2 (Figure 5 F) were less developed across the medium. Klemm (1985: Figure 7.97) shows another variation having inner and outer para-medial rows united with a lighter mid-dorsal region. Sometimes the entire annulus is pigmented across the medium showing a dorsum that is very dark and with no mid-dorsal region. At site 7 (Figure 5 B), specimens most closely resembled the ‘normal’ variety. Specimens at other sites were intermediary between the two forms (Figure 5 A, D, E).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".