Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a literature survey and analysis of the profile of mites (Acari, exclusive of Ixodida) in recent literature and on the World Wide Web, and compare their prominence to that of spiders (Araneae). Despite having approximately the same number of described species, spiders outshine mites on the Web, although the study of mites (Acarology) is better represented than the study of spiders (Araneology). Broad searches of scientific literature imply that publications on mites exceed those on spiders by 2-3x; however, this dominance was reversed when a smaller number of journals with broad readerships and no taxonomic orientation (e.g., Nature, Science) were surveyed. This latter analysis revealed that the topical content of mite and spider papers in these general-science journals differs significantly. A troubling leveling-off of taxonomic publications on mites also was discovered. We conclude by suggesting some strategies that acarologists and editorial boards might follow in order to raise mites to their proper status as exemplary models for ecological and evolutionary research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it