Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pemphigus fraxini Hartig, 1841 Pemphigus fraxini Hartig, 1839: 645 (nomen nudum). Pemphigus fraxini Hartig, 1841: 367. SYNTYPES: 7 (408 [4.08]; field no. missing [4.09-4.14]), Fraxinus. Prociphilus fraxini (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination—Börner, 1952: 193, in contradiction to secondary homonymy and synonymy with Pemphigus fraxini (Geoffroy, 1762) and Pemphigus fraxini (Fabricius, 1777) identified on p. 291: “fraxini Aphis Geoffr. 1762 p.[494] (= F. 1776 p. [303], Htg. 1841 p. 367)”). Prociphilu s fraxini (Fabricius, 1777) (senior secondary homonym and synonym— Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers, 1976: 57, “ A. fraxini Geoffroy, 1762 invalid”; Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers, 1976: 342). Valid Specimens. Seven alates with wax covered abdomens mounted on separate pins. The only specimen with a corresponding journal entry (408) was collected from the leaves and stems of ash [Fraxinus] on June 28, 1837. Remarks. The name was first published as Pemphigus fraxini in Hartig (1839), but was not accompanied by a description, definition or an indication and therefore is not available. In Börner (1952), the name is treated in combination with the genus Prociphilus and as a homonym and synonym of both Aphis fraxini Geoffroy, 1762 (nomen nudum) and Aphis fraxini [= Prociphilus fraxini] Fabricius, 1777. Confirmation of this synonymy is needed as Prociphilus bumeliae (Schrank, 1801) also occurs on Fraxinus in Europe and is similar in morphology.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.083 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".