The first salamander logo in advertising
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perhaps corresponding to known species, frogs remain \nmore often represented than other groups of amphibians \nin popular cultures. While folk perceptions of frogs remain societally positive, those of members of the Caudata are more mixed, owing to often-negative beliefs held in rural Europe and amongst indigenous peoples of the New World (Crump 2015; Das 2011). Examples include their use in witchcraft and poisoning (Shakespeare 1603–1606), as ‘the devil’s beast’ in medieval times (Cooke 1893). It also appears in works on occult and black magic (Crump 2015), as well as in mediaeval bestiaries (McCulloch 1962), and include beliefs, such as seen \nonly when one is about to die (Kuzmin and Maslova 2003) or lead to suffering loss of worldly possessions (Froom 1982), and even affect stored beverages (Brøndegaard 1985). Positive or neutral attributes associated with salamanders include their ability to withstand fire (Aristotle 350 B.C.E.), hence, presumably the \nusage of the salamander motif as ancient symbol for fire and of Sulfur (Saunders 1995). This belief was validated in part by a more recent observation (Stromberg 1997) of a salamander surviving fire.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.306 | 0.105 |
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".