Macrorrhinia pinta Landry and Neunzig 1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Macrorrhinia pinta Landry and Neunzig, 1998 Fig. 19, 27, 36, 45, 61, 72 Macrorrhinia pinta Landry and Neunzig 1998: 499. Diagnosis. The forewing length is 4.6–7.0 mm. (The range given in Landry and Neunzig (1997) who listed 82 specimens is 5.0–8.0 mm. No specimen measured more than 7.0 mm among the 69 specimens examined.) The maculation is similar to M. aureofasciella but the transverse bands are more subdued or indistinct and do not reach the costa (not illustrated). The gnathos (Fig. 36) is similar to that of M. endonephele. The phallus (Fig. 27) is laterally curved, whereas it is straight or nearly so in the other species. The corpus bursae (Fig. 61) is barely constricted in the middle as in M. aureofasciella, but the appendicular lobe is larger with the posterior portion broadly dilated and extended to the posterior end of the corpus bursae. The ductus bursae is barely dilated at the level of the corpus bursae and its inception is situated near the base of the appendicular lobe near the juncture of the corpus bursae. There are no signum nor spines except for a small sclerotization at the juncture of the appendicular lobe. The posterior margin of the antrum has a “winged” appearance with a mesial indentation and curved lateral projections wider than the ductus bursae (Fig. 72). Material examined. Holotype male (CNC), slide PYR 358; 50 males and females including 18 paratypes: ECUADOR, GALAPAGOS, Pinta, Isabela, Santa Cruz, Espanola, San Cristobal, Seymour Norte, Floreana (1989, 1992), slides PYR 399, PYR 400, PYR 435, PYR 2206, PYR 2207 (CNC).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".