Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gorgodera amplicava Looss, 1899a Site of infection: kidneys and urinary bladder (in adult specimens); bladder, excretory ducts, stomach, intestine, colon, cloaca, Wolffian duct, oviduct, mesonephroi (in young specimens). Recruitment: ingestion. Distribution: Canada: Ontario (Bensley, 1897; Looss 1899 a, 1899b; Stafford 1903; Cort 1912; CMNPA; USNPC). USA: Arkansas (Parker 1941; Rosen & Manis 1976); Illinois (Andrews et al. 1992; USNPC); Indiana (Lank 1971); Iowa (Ulmer 1970); Kentucky (Parker 1941); Louisiana (Bennett 1938; Goodchild 1954, 1955; HWML); Massachusetts (Odlaug 1937; Goodchild 1945, 1948, 1950, 1955); Michigan (Krull 1935); Mississippi (Brooks 1979); Missouri (Goodchild 1948, 1950, 1954; HWML); Nebraska (Brooks 1976; Brooks et al. 2006a); North Carolina (Brandt 1936; HWML); Ohio (Odlaug 1936; Guberlet 1920); Oklahoma (Guberlet 1919; Trowbridge & Hefley 1934); Tennessee (Parker 1941); Texas (Harwood 1932; Hollis 1972; Mayberry et al. 2000; Yoder & Gomez 2007; HWML); Virginia (Campbell 1968); Wisconsin (HWML); undetermined locality (Odlaug 1936; Lemke et al. 2008; USNPC). Specimens in collections: CMNPA: 1900-1617a. HWML: 20127-20131, 20957, 22683, 23424, 23425, 33140, 33141, 48349, 49007. USNPC: 50312, 50313, 51638, 51642, 51643, 82013, 84815. Remarks: This species has been registered exclusively in North America; the only record out of this region (Kirghizia, Asia by Skarvilovich, 1950 in Yamaguti 1971) needs to be confirmed. Records of this species from Oklahoma (representing a new species, Gorgodera circava) were transferred to G. amplicava by Harwood (1932); unfortunately, no type specimens were deposited for specific status confirmation. In the same way, specimens from Ontario, Canada (Cort 1912), Illinois (USNPC 51642, 51643 and HWML 20957), Mississippi (Brooks 1979) and Texas (Hollis 1972) were identified as Gorgodera minima, but Yamaguti (1971) considered this species synonym of G. amplicava.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".