Bibliographic record
Abstract
4. Acrotaphus wiltii (Cresson, 1870) Epimecis wiltii Cresson 1870: 143 [♀ (ANSP), USA, Ohio]. References. Shannon 1913 [Epimecis; USA (Virginia); host]. Morley 1914: 8 [Epimecis; misdet. (see Gauld 1991: 333)]. Cresson 1916: 63 [lectotype ♀ (ANSP) designated; USA, Ohio]. Cushman 1920: 17 [Hymenoepimecis; USA (many localities); host], Plate 2. Townes 1944: 55 [catalogue; Hymenoepimecis]. Townes & Townes 1960: 257 [Acrotaphus (comb.); description; Canada, eastern and southeastern USA (to Florida and Texas)]. Gordh 1971 [USA (Kansas); host]. Carlson 1979: 337 [catalogue]. Brambila & Porter 2005: 152 [USA; host]. Pádua et al. 2020a: 56 [description; USA]. Remarks. Record of this species by Morley (1914: 8) actually belongs to A. tibialis (Gauld 1991: 333). Material examined. MEXICO. Veracruz: 1 ♀ (UNAM) NE of San Andrés Tuxtla, Biological Station Los Tuxtlas, 26.vi.1989, coll. M.A. Perez. Distribution. Canada, USA (from Florida north to Quebec and west to Manitoba, Kansas and Texas), Mexico (Veracruz). First record from Mexico. Biology. Reared from the orb weaving spider Neoscona arabesca (Walckenaer) (= Epeira trivittata Keyserling) (Araneidae) in Virginia and Kansas, USA (Shannon 1913; Gordh 1971; Brambila & Porter 2005). Some specimens were collected at light.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.025 | 0.011 |
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".