Fifty spider species new to the Bulgarian fauna, with a review of some dubious species (Arachnida: Araneae)
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
This study is a part of an ongoing comprehensive inventory of Bulgarian spiders. A total of fifty spider species belonging to thirteen families are reported for the first time from Bulgaria. Four species are rejected from the Bulgarian spider checklist due to misidentification: Callilepis concolor Simon, 1914, Centromerus capucinus (Simon, 1884), Hoplopholcus labyrinthi (Kulczyński, 1903) and Mansuphantes prope fragilis (Thorell, 1875). Another four species (Drassodes villosus (Thorell, 1856), Entelecara flavipes (Blackwall, 1834), Lepthyphantes notabilis Kulczyński, 1887 and Singa semiatra L. Koch, 1867) are rejected after a new interpretation of the locations. Six species were omitted from the list of Bulgarian spiders as obviously doubtful records (Dysdera nicaeensis Thorell, 1873, Haplodrassus rufipes (Lucas, 1846), Harpactea hispana (Simon, 1882), Macaroeris cata (Blackwall, 1867), Nomisia celerrima (Simon, 1914) and Tenuiphantes monachus (Simon, 1884)). A new synonymy is proposed for Cyclosa strandjae Drensky, 1915 (= Cyclosa sierrae Simon, 1870 syn. nov.). In addition, new images with essential taxonomic value are provided for twenty-five species to facilitate their identification or to illustrate their intraspecific variability. To ensure correct identification, DNA barcoding was additionally used in some species.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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