Caraphractus cinctus Walker 1846
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caraphractus cinctus Walker, 1846 Caraphractus cinctus Walker, 1846: 52. Syntype (s)? ♀ (depository not specified), lost. TL: Great Britain, locality not specified. A neotype was not designated, as explained by Triapitsyn (2011a). Kirchner, 1867: 202 (catalogue) [P]; Enock, 1895: 89 [P]; Enock, 1896: 28 [P]; Dalla Torre, 1898: 424, 426 (catalogue) [P]; Ashmead, 1904: 364, 369 (genotype); Schmiedeknecht, 1909: 497 (catalogue) [P]; Matheson & Crosby, 1912: 68 (description, biology, hosts, distribution); Enock, 1914: 46 (list) [P]; Rimsky-Korsakov, 1917: 220, 225 (biology) [P]; Hungerford, 1920: 32 (host, distribution); Gahan & Fagan, 1923: 26 (type species); Rimsky-Korsakov, 1925: 103 (biology, morphology) [P]; Gahan et al., 1928: 984 (host, distribution); Hoffmann, 1932: 33 (host) [P]; Rimsky-Korsakov, 1940: 230 (distribution) [P]; Kryger, 1950: 48 (description, hosts) [P]; Peck, 1951: 418 (catalogue); Betten, 1951: 135 (literature review) [P]; Nikol’skaya, 1952: 542 (key) [P]; Jackson, 1956: 144 (host, percent parasitism) [P]; Hagen, 1956: 291 (host); Ison, 1958: 71 (biology, morphology) [P]; Jackson, 1958a: 533 (rearing methods, hosts) [P]; Jackson, 1958b: 17 (larva) [P]; Jackson, 1959: 198 (gynandromorph) [P]; Jackson, 1961a: 823 (diapause) [P]; Jackson, 1961b: 269 (immature stages) [P]; Jackson, 1963: 225 (diapause, life history) [P]; Peck, 1963: 49 (catalogue); Jackson, 1966: 23 (adult life, sex ratio) [P]; Jackson, 1969: 59 (reproductive organs, poison apparatus) [P]; Herting, 1973: 3 (host catalogue) [P]; Viggiani, 1973b: 276 (male genitalia [P]; Hellén, 1974: 21 (key, distribution) [P]; Bouček & Graham, 1978: 110 (catalogue) [P]; Trjapitzin, 1978: 532 (synonymy, distribution) [P]; Burks, 1979: 1031 (catalogue); Hinton, 1981: 709 (mention) [P]; Graham, 1982: 218 (types information) [P]; Trjapitzyn, 1987: 968 (synonymy, distribution) [P]; Viggiani, 1989: 146 (male genitalia) [P]; Yoshimoto, 1990: 70 (list); Boivin, 1994: 224 (overwintering strategy); Fursov, 1995: 5 (host, biology) [P]; Huber, 1997: 506 (key); Triapitsyn & Huber, 2000: 613 (list, distribution) [P]; Bennett, 2008a: 674 (larval description); Bennett, 2008b: 530 (host, swims under water); Boivin, 2010b: 11 (hymenopteriform larva); Triapitsyn, 2011a: 21 (description, distribution, literature); Pintureau, 2012: 28 (list) [P]; Zanolli & Pavan, 2013: 270 (diapause) [P]; Dale-Skey et al., 2016: 237 (checklist) [P]. Anaphes cinctus: Rousseau, 1908: 390 (generic combination) [P]; Thompson, 1958: 568 (host catalogue) [P]. Polynema natans Lubbock, 1864: 138. Lectotype ♀ (NHMUK), validated by Graham, 1982: 218. TL: UK, England, London, Bromley, Farnborough, High Elms. Synonymy by Enock, 1897: 10 and Schmiedeknecht, 1909: 497. Caraphractus reductus Rimsky-Korsakov, 1920: 7. Lectotype ♀ (ZIN), designated by Triapitsyn, 2011a: 24. TL: Russia, Leningrad [skaya] Oblast, Lake Ladoga. Synonymy by Trjapitzin, 1978: 532 and Trjapitzin, 1987: 968. Caraphractus flavicollis Hellén, 1974: 21. Holotype ♀ (FMNH). TL: Finland, Lohja (as Lojo). Synonymy by Triapitsyn, 2011a: 24. Nearctic hosts. Dytiscidae: Agabus sp. (CNC specimens). Distribution. Canada: BC, NB, NT, ON, QC. USA: NY.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 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".