Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascarophis sp. Sites: intestinal lumen, stomach Hosts: Coregonus nasus (8); Cottus aleuticus (5); Gadus macrocephalus (5); Gadus morhua (9); Hexagrammos decagrammus (1, 5); Mallotus villosus (6); Nautichthys oculofasciatus (5); Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (2, 4); Reinhardtius hippoglossoides (7) Distribution: Atlantic, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Pacific Records: 1. Margolis 1977 (PA); 2. Anon. 1981 (BC); 3. Sankurathri et al. 1983 (PA); 4. Anon. 1984 (BC); 5. Ko 1986 (BC, PA); 6. Arthur et al. 1995 (AT); 7. Boje et al. 1997 (AT); 8. Choudhury & Dick 1997 (NT): 9. Khan et al. 2011 (NF) Comments: Five Ascarophis species are known currently from Canadian fishes. Appy (1981) provided good descriptions and illustrations for A. arctica, A. extalicola and A. filiformis; the original descriptions of A. morrhuae and A. sebastodis are relatively poor. Taxonomic problems concern morphology of the head of both sexes, and the tails of males. Regarding the head, the pseudolabia of A. extalicola have a blunt knob rather than the prominent conical apex of A. arctica and A. filiformis, so Appy (op. cit.) and Ko (1986) suggested that A. extalicola might be related to “ Cystidicoloides ” [species of which have been transferred to Salmonema; see page 100]. Regarding male tails, an area rugosa, narrow caudal alae, six pairs of post-cloacal papillae, and paired phasmids behind the 6th pair of papillae appear to be diagnostic. Appy (op. cit.) pointed out that papillae of the 5th pair are relatively small and ventral to the 6th pair, so earlier workers might have overlooked them. Indeed, Figure 55 B illustrates an A. morrhuae male, redrawn from Berland (1961), apparently with only five pairs of post-cloacal papillae, and structures that are [sic] “possibly the phasmids”. The description of neither A. morrhuae nor A. sebastodis mentions an area rugosa; there is no reference to paired phasmids for A. sebastodis; and caudal alae are not mentioned in the descriptions for either species, although Figure 55 B illustrates them for A. morrhuae. Both A. morrhuae and A. sebastodis should be redescribed and illustrated with special attention to the morphology of heads and tails.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 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".