Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acanthocaudus Smith (Figs 1–7) Acanthocaudus Smith 1944: 96 [as subgenus of Trioxys Haliday]. Type species: Trioxys (Acanthocaudus) tissoti Smith [by original designation; USNM, examined]. Acanthocaudus: Mackauer 1960: 138 [status revised to genus]. Diagnosis. Acanthocaudus can be differentiated from other genera of Aphidiinae with species in the Nearctic Region using data in the key to New World genera of Aphidiinae in van Achterberg (1997): forewing without marginal and submarginal cells, tergum 1 and sternum 1 fused basally at least to level of spiracles, hypopygium of female with prongs, hypopygium of female with accessory prongs at base of hypopygial prongs, and female with at least terga 6–7 with subapical row of pegs or spines. Distribution. CANADA: British Columbia (Schlinger & Hall 1960); CUBA: Guantánamo (as Oriente), Pinar del Río (Starý 1981); USA: Florida (Smith 1944), Indiana *, South Dakota (Assefa et al. 2015), Wisconsin (Smith 1944), and Washington (Pike et al. 2000). Hosts. Aphis gossypii Glover, Uroleucon (Uroleucon) ambrosiae, Uroleucon bradburyi (Olive) *, Uroleucon (Lambersius) erigeronense, Uroleucon (Lambersius) gravicorne, Uroleucon (Uroleucon) rudbeckiae, and Uroleucon (Uroleucon) russellae (see host sections for each species below for references to rearing records).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".