Bibliographic record
Abstract
240 Euura munda (Konow, 1895) Figs 259, 498 Amauronematus mundus Konow, 1895: 167, 172–173. Lectotype designated below. Diagnosis Females are most similar to darker specimens of E. neglecta. Terga 1–8 are dorsally fully black in E. munda, while extensively pale starting at least from tergum 7 in E. neglecta. The mesepisternum is usually ventrally black in E. munda and usually completely pale in E. neglecta. Black and brown or greyish legs in males might distinguish them from males of E. neglecta which usually have extensively reddish or orange legs. Sternum 9 might usually (?) be black in E. longiserra males, but pale in E. munda. Type material examined Lectotype Amauronematus mundus, here designated GERMANY – Brandenburg • ♀; Finkenkrug; 52.56° N, 13.03° E; 30 m a.s.l.; SDEI, GBIF-GISHym4096. Host plants Salix repens, including S. repens rosmarinifolia. Genetics COI Based on 13 specimens, maximum within-species distance is 2.28% and the nearest neighbours, diverging by a minimum of 0%, are Euura eiteli (DEI-GISHym84213), E. longiserra, and E. neglecta. Nuclear Based on 11 specimens, maximum within-species distance is 0.32% (0.2% based on haplotypes of individual females). The nearest neighbour, diverging by a minimum of 0.32%, is Euura neglecta. Distribution and material examined Palaearctic. Specimens studied are from Finland, France, and Germany.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.197 | 0.074 |
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".