Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aphis spinarum Hartig, 1841 Aphis spinarum Hartig, 1841: 370. SYNTYPES: 14 (150 [8.04] lost; 1226 [8.05], 3 lost), Prunus spinosa. Hyalopterus pruni (Geoffroy, 1762) (senior synonym—Börner, 1952: 68). Valid Specimens. Six pointed on a single pin (150) with leaf tissue collected from Prunus spinosa in 1840. All specimens lost. Note that the leaf tissue appears to be coated in white powdery mildew, as described in Hartig (1841).An additional eight pointed specimens on a single pin collected in 1839 (1226). Three specimens are lost, and the rest are nymphs. Remarks. Börner (1952) treated Aphis spinarum Hartig, 1841 as a synonym of Hyalopterus pruni (Geoffroy, 1762), and Favret et al. (2017) reaffirmed this on the basis of host-association. Unfortunately, all specimens that were clearly associated with Prunus spinosa, as determined by Hartig’s notes, have been lost with the exception of pinned host tissue (150) that appears to contain traces of a waxy residue and possibly aphid exuviae. The only remaining type specimens (1226) associated with the A. spinarum label are clearly not H. pruni, and while they appear to belong to the Macrosiphini, their exact identity is yet to be determined. Hartig wrote that they were observed feeding together around the peduncles of their host plant, but the host itself was not identified.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".