Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT- A survey was designed to assess the status of the collections of recent mammals in Italy through 79 questionnaires mailed to the main University institutions, municipal, provincial or regional museums and other institutions (including some private collections). We received 58 questionnaires (return rate of 73%). The minimum number of specimens in recent mammal collections in Italy is 161,268 (70 % are in Italian collections and 30 % in exotic ones). Most of these specimens are concentrated in a quarter of the collections. Taxidermy is the main preservation technique, above all in exotic collections (84%). 82 % of the exotic collections date back to the 19 th century, while specimens collected after 1950 form 91 % of the Italian ones. During the 20 th century the Italian collections progressively increased in number and spread through the peninsula and in Sicily. Insectivora, Rodentia, Carnivora, Lagomorpha, Artiodactyla and Primates are represented in more than 80 % of the collections. Research results the primary goal both in Italian (70%) and exotic (57%) collections. Key words: recent mammals, collections, Italy RIASSUNTO- Le collezioni di mammiferi attuali in Italia. Per delineare lo status delle collezioni museali di mammiferi attuali in Italia è stata condotta un’indagine mediante 79 questionari inviati a istituzioni universitarie, musei civici, provinciali e regionali ed altre
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".