Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coccus strobus Hartig, 1839 Coccus strobus Hartig, 1839: 643. SYNTYPES: 3 (field no. missing [2.04]; 87 [2.05]). Chermes strobi (Hartig, 1839) (change of combination and senior synonym with respect to Chermes corticalis Kaltenbach, 1843: 197 — Ratzeburg, 1844: 203). Coccus strobi (Hartig, 1839) (alternate spelling— Hartig, 1851: 85). Chermes corticalis Kaltenbach, 1843 (misapplied junior synonym— Buckton, 1883: 23, “ Chermes strobi, Hartig (?)”). Pineus strobi (Hartig, 1839) (change of combination— Börner, 1908: 415). Valid Specimens. Two covered in wax and mounted on a rectangular card without a label. A third (87) covered in wax and mounted in situ on plant tissue. Hartig’s notes indicate that it was collected between May 1–20, 1834 from oak in Tiergarten, Berlin, Germany. Remarks. Hartig (1839) identified the North American white pine, Pinus strobus, as the host plant and source of species etymology for Coccus strobus Hartig,1839 so specimen 87 may be mislabelled or oak was accidentally identified as the host in his notes. Hartig (1839) was in doubt about the generic placement of C. strobus and other related pine and spruce feeding species. Indeed, general confusion about where to place species of Coccus Linnaeus, 1758, Chermes Linnaeus, 1758, and Kermes Linnaeus, 1740 extended well into the next century (Burdon 1907). We cannot be completely certain of the identity of these specimens without slide mounting them, but the individual in situ on pine bark and the description by Hartig (1839) of this species covering the trunks of Pinus strobus in white wool “as if covered with snow,” leave little doubt that these specimens are Pineus strobi (Hartig, 1839), the only adelgid species that exhibits this trait.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".