<commit_before>
<h3>How the categories work</h3>

<p class="small">
Classification quality categories are extremely important because they determine whether we will use the opinions.
The rules are that (1) higher-quality references or opinions are always preferred; (2) if two references or opinions of the same quality conflict, the most recently published one is preferred; and (3) <i>all</i> opinions in a reference have the same quality, except for opinions that have had their quality determined separately.
</p>

<p class="small">
So, for example, if there is only one "authoritative" opinion, it is always used no matter how old it is.
This is very dangerous if the reference is (say) more than 20 or 30 years old, in which case a more recent "authoritative" publication also should be found and entered.
</p>

<p class="small">
Likewise, if there is no "authoritative" opinion but we have two or more "standard" opinions, the most recent will be used.
Again, obviously, an "authoritative" opinion, or at least a recent "standard" opinion, would be nice to have.
</p>

<p class="small">
Another dangerous problem is that because all opinions in a reference are assumed to have the same quality unless stated otherwise, poorly justified opinions in an "authoritative" publication may override key opinions in older "authoritative" publications.
It is therefore important to classify the quality of opinions that are less reliable than most of the others in the same publication.
</p>


<h3>Categories of publications</h3>

<h4>Authoritative references</h4>

<p class="small">
An <i>authoritative</i> reference <b>classifies taxa</b> based on first hand knowledge and discussion of the relevant specimens.
Typically, it involves descriptions of new species, novel synonymies or recombinations of species names, new classifications of higher taxa, and explicit phylogenetic analyses.
Common examples include reports of new species and monographic revisions of groups that discuss most or all of the species individually.
</p>

<h4>Standard references</h4>

<p class="small">
A <i>standard</i> reference is based on knowledge of the specimens, but <b>does not focus on classification</b>.
Typically, new occurrences are reported, but specimens are not described in detail, and any new opinions are either briefly or not at all justified.
Common examples include brief reports of new faunas, or biostratigraphic, paleoecologic, and/or taphonomic analyses that also give taxonomic lists.
Some synoptic classifications, such as most <i>Treatise</i> volumes and Simpson's 1945 classification of mammals, should go in this category, because the author has done primary systematic work on representatives of most or all of the included groups, but is mostly not presenting new, explicit evidence.
</p>

<h4>Compendia</h4>

<p class="small">
A <i>compendium</i>-quality reference <b>summarizes previously published classifications</b> without any novel interpretation, argumentation, or analysis.
Typically, the author may have first hand knowledge of some specimens belonging to the group, but not most of them.
Common examples include synoptic compilations such as Sepkoski's Compendia, and classifications given in textbooks such as Carroll's <i>Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution</i> or standard references such as <i>Walker's Mammals of the World</i>.
Synoptic but simplified classifications even by real experts that do not give intermediate ranks such as subfamilies should be treated as compendia.
</p>

<h3>Categories of opinions</h3>

<p class="small">
Opinions need to be categorized separately if they are of different quality than the publication in general.
For example, if a publication is "authoritative" because it describes new species and so forth, but it gives an opinion and the author clearly hasn't thought the matter through, that specific opinion needs to be classified as "standard" or "second hand."
If you don't classify it, it could override an older but more authoritative and justified opinion.
</p>

<p class="small">
That said, you <i>always</i> should enter <i>all</i> opinions that are attributed explicitly to a particular, previously published "authoritative" reference.
Just make sure to credit them to the earlier reference and not to the current reference.
</p>

<h4>Authoritative opinions</h4>

<p class="small">
In cases like these, <b>the author is presenting new evidence</b> for the opinion.
</p>

<ul class="tiny">
<li>The taxonomic name is newly described in this publication
<li>A synonymy, recombination, or assignment to a higher taxon is first proposed in the publication
<li>The author presents a new, quantitative phylogenetic analysis that justifies the opinion
<li>The author justifies the opinion with a detailed discussion of anatomy
</ul>

<h4>Standard opinions</h4>

<p class="small">
In cases like these, <b>the author probably knows the taxon well</b>, but is not really focusing on it in this publication.
</p>

<ul class="tiny">
<li>The placement of a genus or higher taxon (not species) is indicated by the classification list in a species description, but otherwise not discussed (see example)
<li>There is a classification table, but it is repeated without discussion from the author's earlier publications
<li>There is a phylogeny supporting the classification, but it is repeated from the author's earlier publications
<li>The paper is phylogenetic and classifies the taxon, but really focuses only on the relationships and naming of other groups
<li>The taxon is an exemplar for a more inclusive group that might or might not be subdivided (e.g., one genus standing in for a family that might or might not have subfamilies)
<li>The author discusses alternative classifications, and slightly favors one without strongly endorsing it ("sounds reasonable to me")
<li>A paper published not long before presented a new opinion that conflicts, and it is not even cited
<li>A recent conflicting opinion that originally wasn't justified in great detail is dismissed, but with no justification
<li>A recent conflicting opinion that originally was based on a detailed and possibly quantitative analysis is dismissed, but only by citing a few characters
<li>Likewise, because the author is not sure whether the new classification will be accepted widely
</ul>

<h4>Second hand opinions</h4>

<p class="small">
In cases like these, <b>the author probably has not done primary research</b> on this particular classification problem - but <i>does</i> know the literature, so the opinion is not simply an assumption about "what everyone knows."
If it is, then don't credit the author with an opinion at all (see Fatal flaws).
</p>

<ul class="tiny">
<li>There is a classification table, but it is repeated without discussion from someone else's earlier publications
<li>There is a phylogeny supporting the classification, but it is repeated from someone else's earlier publications
<li>The author cites earlier publications giving the opinion (so enter the opinion credited to each reference separately), and is clearly assuming the opinion is true, but does not actually state their own opinion, much less present evidence ("that's what people say")
<li>The taxon is close to the base in the phylogeny and may or may not be an outgroup
</ul>

<h4>Fatal flaws</h4>

<p class="small">
In cases like these, don't enter the opinion at all, because the information is probably wrong, uninterpretable, or 100% repeated by someone who does not know the group well.
</p>

<ul class="tiny">
<li>The author briefly mentions that a previously named genus is in the family, family in the order, etc., but gives no citations or justification
<li>The author only discusses alternative classifications and there is no way to tell what the author her/himself thinks (so, enter the older opinions, but not an opinion for the current paper)
<li>The taxon is an outgroup, not an ingroup, in a phylogeny
<li>The taxon is an exemplar for a more inclusive group that is normally subdivided, such as one genus standing in for a family that has accepted subfamilies (so, you can credit the opinion to the family or order or what have you, but definitely not the genus or species)
<li>The taxon is normally placed in a monotypic family, order, etc. that isn't mentioned (so, again you can credit the opinion to the family, order, etc. instead)
</ul>

<h4>
Hypothetical example
</h4>

<p class="small">
It is very, very common for a paper focusing on species-level taxonomy to repeat conventional higher order classifications without comment.
These classifications routinely skip intermediate ranks, so they almost never should be considered authoritative.
</p>

<p class="small">
Here's an example.
Suppose a paper includes this listing at the top of its systematic paleontology section:
</p>

<blockquote>

<p class="tiny">
SYSTEMATICS<br><br>

Class Mammalia<br>
Order Primates<br>
Family Hominidae<br>
Subfamily Homininae<br><br>

Genus <i>Paleoprotoanthropus</i> n. gen.<br>

<i>Paleoprotoanthropus simpsoni</i> n. sp.
</p>

</blockquote>

<p class="small">
So, the placement of <i>Paleoprotoanthropus</i> in Homininae and <i>Paleoprotoanthropus simpsoni</i> in <i>Paleoprotoanthropus</i> is authoritative.
The other placements are standard, unless they are justified elsewhere.
Note, for example, how intermediate taxa like Anthropoidea are omitted - the author may accept them, but just didn't bother to list them.</p>

<p class="small">
Note that if <i>Paleoprotoanthropus</i> had not been a new genus, its placement also would have to be justified to be authoritative.
</p>
<commit_msg>simple reformatting: switched to using pageTitle class, replaced <h4> and <b> tags, added margin<commit_after>
<div style="margin: 1em;">

<center><p class="pageTitle">How the categories work</p></center>

<p class="small">
Classification quality categories are extremely important because they determine whether we will use the opinions.
The rules are that (1) higher-quality references or opinions are always preferred; (2) if two references or opinions of the same quality conflict, the most recently published one is preferred; and (3) <i>all</i> opinions in a reference have the same quality, except for opinions that have had their quality determined separately.
</p>

<p class="small">
So, for example, if there is only one "authoritative" opinion, it is always used no matter how old it is.
This is very dangerous if the reference is (say) more than 20 or 30 years old, in which case a more recent "authoritative" publication also should be found and entered.
</p>

<p class="small">
Likewise, if there is no "authoritative" opinion but we have two or more "standard" opinions, the most recent will be used.
Again, obviously, an "authoritative" opinion, or at least a recent "standard" opinion, would be nice to have.
</p>

<p class="small">
Another dangerous problem is that because all opinions in a reference are assumed to have the same quality unless stated otherwise, poorly justified opinions in an "authoritative" publication may override key opinions in older "authoritative" publications.
It is therefore important to classify the quality of opinions that are less reliable than most of the others in the same publication.
</p>


<center><p class="pageTitle">Categories of publications</p></center>

<center><p class="large">Authoritative references</p></center>

<p class="small">
An <i>authoritative</i> reference <i>classifies taxa</i> based on first hand knowledge and discussion of the relevant specimens.
Typically, it involves descriptions of new species, novel synonymies or recombinations of species names, new classifications of higher taxa, and explicit phylogenetic analyses.
Common examples include reports of new species and monographic revisions of groups that discuss most or all of the species individually.
</p>

<center><p class="large">Standard references</p></center>

<p class="small">
A <i>standard</i> reference is based on knowledge of the specimens, but <i>does not focus on classification</i>.
Typically, new occurrences are reported, but specimens are not described in detail, and any new opinions are either briefly or not at all justified.
Common examples include brief reports of new faunas, or biostratigraphic, paleoecologic, and/or taphonomic analyses that also give taxonomic lists.
Some synoptic classifications, such as most <i>Treatise</i> volumes and Simpson's 1945 classification of mammals, should go in this category, because the author has done primary systematic work on representatives of most or all of the included groups, but is mostly not presenting new, explicit evidence.
</p>

<center><p class="large">Compendia</p></center>

<p class="small">
A <i>compendium</i>-quality reference <i>summarizes previously published classifications</i> without any novel interpretation, argumentation, or analysis.
Typically, the author may have first hand knowledge of some specimens belonging to the group, but not most of them.
Common examples include synoptic compilations such as Sepkoski's Compendia, and classifications given in textbooks such as Carroll's <i>Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution</i> or standard references such as <i>Walker's Mammals of the World</i>.
Synoptic but simplified classifications even by real experts that do not give intermediate ranks such as subfamilies should be treated as compendia.
</p>

<center><p class="pageTitle">Categories of opinions</p></center>

<p class="small">
Opinions need to be categorized separately if they are of different quality than the publication in general.
For example, if a publication is "authoritative" because it describes new species and so forth, but it gives an opinion and the author clearly hasn't thought the matter through, that specific opinion needs to be classified as "standard" or "second hand."
If you don't classify it, it could override an older but more authoritative and justified opinion.
</p>

<p class="small">
That said, you <i>always</i> should enter <i>all</i> opinions that are attributed explicitly to a particular, previously published "authoritative" reference.
Just make sure to credit them to the earlier reference and not to the current reference.
</p>

<center><p class="large">Authoritative opinions</p></center>

<p class="small">
In cases like these, <i>the author is presenting new evidence</i> for the opinion.
</p>

<ul class="tiny">
<li>The taxonomic name is newly described in this publication
<li>A synonymy, recombination, or assignment to a higher taxon is first proposed in the publication
<li>The author presents a new, quantitative phylogenetic analysis that justifies the opinion
<li>The author justifies the opinion with a detailed discussion of anatomy
</ul>

<center><p class="large">Standard opinions</p></center>

<p class="small">
In cases like these, <i>the author probably knows the taxon well</i>, but is not really focusing on it in this publication.
</p>

<ul class="tiny">
<li>The placement of a genus or higher taxon (not species) is indicated by the classification list in a species description, but otherwise not discussed (see example)
<li>There is a classification table, but it is repeated without discussion from the author's earlier publications
<li>There is a phylogeny supporting the classification, but it is repeated from the author's earlier publications
<li>The paper is phylogenetic and classifies the taxon, but really focuses only on the relationships and naming of other groups
<li>The taxon is an exemplar for a more inclusive group that might or might not be subdivided (e.g., one genus standing in for a family that might or might not have subfamilies)
<li>The author discusses alternative classifications, and slightly favors one without strongly endorsing it ("sounds reasonable to me")
<li>A paper published not long before presented a new opinion that conflicts, and it is not even cited
<li>A recent conflicting opinion that originally wasn't justified in great detail is dismissed, but with no justification
<li>A recent conflicting opinion that originally was based on a detailed and possibly quantitative analysis is dismissed, but only by citing a few characters
<li>Likewise, because the author is not sure whether the new classification will be accepted widely
</ul>

<center><p class="large">Second hand opinions</p></center>

<p class="small">
In cases like these, <i>the author probably has not done primary research</i> on this particular classification problem - but <i>does</i> know the literature, so the opinion is not simply an assumption about "what everyone knows."
If it is, then don't credit the author with an opinion at all (see Fatal flaws).
</p>

<ul class="tiny">
<li>There is a classification table, but it is repeated without discussion from someone else's earlier publications
<li>There is a phylogeny supporting the classification, but it is repeated from someone else's earlier publications
<li>The author cites earlier publications giving the opinion (so enter the opinion credited to each reference separately), and is clearly assuming the opinion is true, but does not actually state their own opinion, much less present evidence ("that's what people say")
<li>The taxon is close to the base in the phylogeny and may or may not be an outgroup
</ul>

<center><p class="large">Fatal flaws</p></center>

<p class="small">
In cases like these, don't enter the opinion at all, because the information is probably wrong, uninterpretable, or 100% repeated by someone who does not know the group well.
</p>

<ul class="tiny">
<li>The author briefly mentions that a previously named genus is in the family, family in the order, etc., but gives no citations or justification
<li>The author only discusses alternative classifications and there is no way to tell what the author her/himself thinks (so, enter the older opinions, but not an opinion for the current paper)
<li>The taxon is an outgroup, not an ingroup, in a phylogeny
<li>The taxon is an exemplar for a more inclusive group that is normally subdivided, such as one genus standing in for a family that has accepted subfamilies (so, you can credit the opinion to the family or order or what have you, but definitely not the genus or species)
<li>The taxon is normally placed in a monotypic family, order, etc. that isn't mentioned (so, again you can credit the opinion to the family, order, etc. instead)
</ul>

<center><p class="large">
Hypothetical example
</p></center>

<p class="small">
It is very, very common for a paper focusing on species-level taxonomy to repeat conventional higher order classifications without comment.
These classifications routinely skip intermediate ranks, so they almost never should be considered authoritative.
</p>

<p class="small">
Here's an example.
Suppose a paper includes this listing at the top of its systematic paleontology section:
</p>

<blockquote>

<p class="tiny">
SYSTEMATICS<br><br>

Class Mammalia<br>
Order Primates<br>
Family Hominidae<br>
Subfamily Homininae<br><br>

Genus <i>Paleoprotoanthropus</i> n. gen.<br>

<i>Paleoprotoanthropus simpsoni</i> n. sp.
</p>

</blockquote>

<p class="small">
So, the placement of <i>Paleoprotoanthropus</i> in Homininae and <i>Paleoprotoanthropus simpsoni</i> in <i>Paleoprotoanthropus</i> is authoritative.
The other placements are standard, unless they are justified elsewhere.
Note, for example, how intermediate taxa like Anthropoidea are omitted - the author may accept them, but just didn't bother to list them.</p>

<p class="small">
Note that if <i>Paleoprotoanthropus</i> had not been a new genus, its placement also would have to be justified to be authoritative.
</p>

</div>

{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06960804224207962, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026401299756295695, 'mean_word_length': 5.282934609250399, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 315, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 315, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '1075518', 'n_tokens_mistral': 5184, 'n_tokens_neox': 4866, 'n_words': 2824}