MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099765780

A Capital

2015· article· en· W7099765780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera: Cerambycidae studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommon nameFish <Actinopterygii>Species nameWhite (mutation)Resource (disambiguation)Specific nameNatural resource
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

case for common names “of species of fishes-a white crappie or a White Crappie Common names of fishes are an important and often primary means of fish biologists communicat-ing with each other and with the public. Although common names will never replace scientific names, they are indispensable in many areas such as fisheries science, management, administration, and education. In recognition of the important role common names play in communicating information about fishes, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) have a long-standing cooperative effort to promote the use of standard common names for species of fishes through the joint Committee on Names of Fishes. The first list of fish names, although not cov-ering all species then known in the United States and Canada, was published in 1948 (Chute et al. 1948). This was expanded in 1960 to include all known species in these two countries (Bailey et al. 1960). The list was revised approximately every 10 years with the last edition being Robins et al. (1991). The next list and the sixth edition is expected to be com-pleted this year and will include the ichthyofauna of Mexico, thus giving a complete list of fishes for all North America. The effort’s success is evidenced by use of standard common names in fish journals and by the adoption and routine use of the common names list by many agencies, institutions, and natural resource educators. For example, many publications on fishes only require the use of the scientific name with the standard common name once, and there-after, the common name may be used. The joint societal effort also resulted in a set of principles guiding the selection of common names. These guidelines include a decision, with which we disagree and which is the subject of this editorial, on capitalization of common names. We strongly sup-port the development and continued updating of standard common names and recognize the impor-tance of the guidelines developed for their use, but believe there are reasons to change the policy on capitalization of common names in English. The com-mon names of fishes by convention have been treated as common nouns, not proper nouns, and accordingly spelled in lower case, e.g., rainbow trout, not Rainbow Trout, and white crappie, not White

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5290.251

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColeoptera: Cerambycidae studiesFrench-language works237,207