Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasioglossum gemmatum species complex Species included Lasioglossum angelicum sp. nov., L. busckiellum (Cockerell, 1915), L. carlinvillense Gibbs, 2009, L. coactus (Cresson, 1872), L. cupreicollis (Friese, 1917), L. deludens sp. nov., L. diabolicum sp. nov., L. ellisiae (Sandhouse, 1924), L. enatum Gibbs, 2018, L. eremum sp. nov., L. fernandezis Engel, 2000, L. gaudiale (Sandhouse, 1924), L. gemmatum (Smith, 1853), L. gloriosum sp. nov., L. helianthi (Cockerell, 1916), L. holzenthali sp. nov., L. indagator sp. nov., L. lepidii (Graenicher, 1927), L. magnitegula sp. nov., L. monense Gibbs, 2018, L. parvum (Cresson, 1865), L. paululum (Sandhouse, 1924), L. perparvum (Ellis, 1914), L. profundum sp. nov., L. pseudotegulare (Cockerell, 1896), L. puteulanum Gibbs, 2009, L. rufodeludens sp. nov., L. stictaspis (Sandhouse, 1923), L. surianae (Mitchell, 1960), L. tegulare (Robertson, 1890), and L. tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907). Diagnosis Both sexes in the L. gemmatum complex have the tegula enlarged (reaching the posterior margin of the mesoscutum in dorsal view or nearly so), usually strongly punctate, and with the inner posterior margin straight or concave; about 50% of clypeus projecting below suborbital tangent; and T1 without tomentum. Additionally, females have the propodeum with a distinct oblique carina, and males have the mesepisternum and often propodeum lateral face shiny with large, distinct punctures, and metasomal sterna with moderately sparse plumose pubescence 1–2 OD long. Some members of the L. perdifficile complex (defined in Gardner & Gibbs 2022) have a similar tegula, but these have more than 50% of the clypeus projecting below the suborbital tangent, females with propodeum oblique carina absent, and T1 with lateral tomentum. Some atypical specimens of L. knereri Gibbs, 2010 from California (possibly representing a cryptic species) also have a similar tegula, but have the propodeum without a distinct oblique carina, the metasomal terga all without appressed tomentum, and males have the metasomal sterna with very long and dense scopa-like pubescence (> 2 OD). Lasioglossum comulum Michener, 1951, L. dispersum Gibbs, 2018, L. immigrans Gardner & Gibbs, 2022, L. strigosigena Michener, 1954, and several undescribed species have the tegula small, ovoid, and impunctate, which is standard for most L. (Dialictus), but resemble the L. gemmatum complex in most other characters. Additionally, DNA barcodes of these two species groups are very similar and suggest a close relationship. These species are informally defined as the L. comulum group. The L. comulum group appears to be an evolutionary grade from which the L. gemmatum complex is derived (Fig. 2), but additional taxon sampling and more molecular data are needed to resolve their relationship with more certainty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".