Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caliroa annulipes (Klug, 1816) (Figs 5G, 8I) Tenthredo (Allantus) annulipes Klug, 1816: 70. Caliroa annulipes: Chevin, 1974: 161; Taeger et al., 1998: 70; Lacourt, 1999: 54; Lacourt, 2002: 130; Lelej & Taeger, 2007: 953; Taeger et al., 2010: 364; Hara, 2011 [part]: 379; Lelej, 2012: 77. For more synonymy, see Lacourt (1999) and Taeger et al. (2010). Additional description: female and male. Postocellar area with dull or inconspicuous anterior groove laterally. Clypeus with depth of emargination 0.3–0.4 × median length of clypeus. Malar space slightly wider than facet of eye in female, slightly narrower than facet in male; setae absent. Forewing with basal corner of cell 1M slightly acute (photos in Taeger et al., 2018). In male, hind wing with apex of cell 1A not close to wing margin (fig. 2Q in Hara, 2011). Punctures mostly minute or inconspicuous. Mesoscutellum with only inconspicuous minute punctures. Mesoscutellar appendage mostly setose in female (Fig. 5G), posterolaterally setose in male. Dorsum of abdomen smooth, not microsculptured. Male genitalia with harpe widest near base, gently rounded on medial margin in ventral view (fig. 5D–F in Hara, 2011); penisvalve apically hooked. Material examined. FINLAND: 1♀, “Fennia: Kl, Parikkala, 3. VII. 1963, leg. E. Valkeila ”.— GERMANY: 1♂, “D: Mark Brandbg., Ebersw.: Chorin, “Mooskuten”, 5. 8. 1993 / 9. M, leg. M. Sommer ”.— AUSTRIA: 1♀, “c. 1988 July, em. 1989-05-17, Ritterkamp, NÖ”, “ Caliroa annulipes, Tilia cordata” and “ E. Altenhofer ”. Distribution. From Russian Far East to Europe, Canada (Lelej, 2012). The record from China is based on a misidentification (Wei et al., 2006, p. 510). The occurrence of this species in Japan was mentioned by Togashi (1960, 1972) and Okutani (1965). Togashi’s (1960) record of “ Caliroa? annulipes ” from Honshu, Japan and Okutani’s (1965) “ C. annulipes ” are not C. annulipes but C. oishii (see also Hara, 2011). Togashi (1972) reported the host plant of C. annulipes in Japan. His material may be C. ouensis, because these two species are very similar as stated under the remarks of C. ouensis. A Japanese female of “ C. annulipes ” in Hara (2011) is not C. annulipes and here designated as the holotype of C. ouensis. We exclude C. annulipes from the fauna of Japan.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".