Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genus Papiliograptus Lenz & Kozłowska-Dawidziuk, 2002 TYPE SPECIES. — Papiliograptus papilio Lenz & Kozłowska-Dawidziuk, 2002. DIAGNOSIS (modified from Lenz et al. 2018). — Retiolitine graptoloid; tubarium narrowing distally, but appendix unknown; pleural and mid-ventral lists present and well developed; ancora umbrella simple; dense reticulum with zigzag or almost horizontal coarser ancora sleeve lists; proximal lateral orifices large, circular to kidney shaped; thecal orifices deep; (butterfly-shaped) reticulate genicular processes; lists with pustules. SPECIES INCLUDED. — Papiliograptus papilio Lenz & Kozłowska-Dawidziuk, 2002. Papiliograptus retimarginatus n. sp.; Papiliograptus? petilus Lenz & Kozłowska-Dawidziuk, 2002. DISCUSSION Papiliograptus? petilus from Arctic Canada occurs in the lower part of the praedeubeli /deubeli Biozone, like the new species. It is described from well-preserved specimens which all lack the proximal end. The best preserved specimen is a parallelsided fragment with c. seven thecal pairs (Lenz & Kozłowska-Dawidziuk 2002: figs 11; 12). The material lacks any genicular additions and does not show any indication of distal narrowing of the tubarium. Thus, it may belong to any genus in which the nema is free inside the colony and the ancora sleeve walls possess comparable list constructions (e.g. Baculograptus, Papiliograptus).
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".