Khatangaphis sibirica Kononova, 1975 (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Tajmyraphididae) redescription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The family Tajmyraphididae was originally described by E. L. Kononova (1975) from Taimyr amber (Taimyr Peninsula, Siberian, Russia). Initially, the family comprised four genera and seven species. In 1996, O.E. Heie extended the family including a new genus and species (Grassyaphis pikei Heie, 1996) from Canadian amber (Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada) and after describing two more new species (Lebanaphis minor Heie, 2000 and Megarostrum azari Heie, 2000) from Lebanese amber, he revised the family (Heie & Azar, 2000). In Heie’s new diagnosis the family was divided into five subfamilies, which later, in “A list of fossil aphids (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Aphidomorpha” (Heie & Wegierek, 2011), gained a family rank. In 2020, D. Żyła and P. Wegierek for the first time described the representatives of the family (three genera, seven species) from Khotont (Mongolia, Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous) based on imprints. At present, the superfamily Tajmyraphidoidea Kononova, 1975 contains two families: Burmitaphididae and Tajmyraphididae. The latter is divided into three subfamilies: Lebanaphidinae, Mongolaphidinae and Tajmyraphidinae. The subfamily Tajmyraphidinae contains all the species described by Kononova from Taimyr amber. Currently the representatives of the family are known from both the Early and the Late Cretaceous.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".