Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tropicior (Ellis, 1914) Fig. 24B Halictus (Chloralictus) tropicior Ellis, 1914: 219 (holotype, ♀, USNM ENT00535200). Dialictus tropicior – Moure & Hurd 1987: 135 (catalogue). Type material Holotype GUATEMALA – Izabal • 1 ♀; Quirigua; [15.27° N, 89.04° W]; 20 Feb. 1912; W.P. Cockerell leg.; ex Distimake quinquefolius; USNM ENT00535200. Other material examined MEXICO – Campeche • 1 ♀; Ruinas Edzna; [19.597° N, 90.23° W]; 24 Jun. 1966; University of Kansas Mexico Expedition leg.; SEMC. – Quintana Roo • 1 ♀; 12 km NW of Reforma; [18.89° N, 88.65° W]; 14 Oct. 1986; Charles D. Michener leg.; SEMC • 1 ♀; 23 km W of Felipe Carrillo Puerto; [19.58° N, 88.27° W]; 12 Oct. 1986; Charles D. Michener leg.; SEMC. Remarks Uncommon on the Yucatán Peninsula (three specimens examined). The specimens closely match images of the holotype and agree with the original description (Ellis 1914), and the type locality in eastern Guatemala is on the southern edge of the Yucatán Peninsula, but we still consider the identifications somewhat uncertain because of the likelihood that this species (along with L. deceptor, L. flaveriae (Mitchell, 1960), L. gundlachii (Baker, 1906), L. liguanense (Sandhouse, 1924), and possibly L. exiguum and L. umbripenne (Ellis, 1913)) is part of a large and diverse complex including many undescribed species. Morphologically similar specimens which cannot be confidently assigned to a described species are common in other areas of Mexico.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 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".