Roger Blackman 1941–2022—an appreciation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dr Roger Laurence Blackman (Fig. 1) passed away on 17 March 2022, after more than 50 years dedicated to advances in aphid science. There can be very few scientists studying any aspect of aphids whose papers have not cited the works of Roger Blackman. To his name, we add that of Victor Eastop (1924–2012), for the two of them formed an inspirational, complementary and indefatigable pair at London’s Natural History Museum. Together they were responsible for, amongst many other seminal works, the three testaments of the aphidologists’ bible: Aphids on the World’s Crops, Aphids on the World’s Trees and Aphids on the World’s Herbaceous Plants and Shrubs, now brought together and regularly updated by Roger until very recently in the online version, Aphids on the World’s Plants (www.aphidsonworldsplants.info). Victor was an out-and-out taxonomist, absolutely amongst the best the world has known, whilst being very familiar with most aspects of aphidology. Roger’s contributions were broader as we shall see.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
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".