Bibliographic record
Abstract
TRICHADENOTECNUM QUAESITUM (CHAPMAN) Psocus quaesitus Chapman, 1930: 270 (male; not female of Psocus quaesitum Chapman, 1930: 270). Trichadenotecnum slossonae (Banks): Sommerman, 1948: 273 (female). Trichadenotecnum quaesitum (Chapman): Mockford, 1993: 286. Material examined: CANADA: 1 male, Quebec, Rd. 18 nr Mascouche, N. Montreal, 21.viii.1956, ELM (ISU); 1 male, USA: Indiana, Dunes State Park, 6.ix.1952, ELM (ISU); 1 male, Missouri, Big Spring State Park, Carter Co., 21.vi.1959, ELM (ISU); 1 male, 1 female, South Carolina, Berkeley Co., Bonneau, 3.x.1973, ELM (ISU). Diagnosis: Although considerable variations in body size and some genital characters are recognized, this species can be characterized by the combination of the following character states: forewing not extensively covered with small spots (Fig. 17C); basal lobe of clunial arm weakly sclerotized (Fig. 21A); epiproct lobe nearly parallel sided (Fig. 21B); apex of hypandrial right arm exceeding outer margin of left process; hypandrial median tongue relatively broad, asymmetrical, slightly left skewed (Fig. 21C); pseudoparameres widely separated, aedeagal area wider than basal width of pseudoparamere (Fig. 21D). In contrast, the following intraspecific variations were observed: difference in body size, male forewing length 2.6–3.8 mm; some minute differences in hypandrium and phallosome. However, these variations are continuous and intraspecific. It is also possible that these morphological variations indicate genetic isolation between different populations, and further morphological and molecular analyses are required to clarify it. See Mockford (1993) for further description of the species.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".