Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genus Priscibrumus Kovář Priscibrumus Kovář, 1997: 114. Type species: Exochomus puniceipennis Semenow, 1900, by original designation. Diagnosis. Form elongate oval to elliptical, moderately to weakly convex, with dense, short, fine silvery white pubescence. Antenna with 10 antennomeres. Posterior margin of pronotum completely bordered. Bases of pronotum and elytra contiguous throughout their length. Abdominal postcoxal line almost complete, semicircular. Elytral epipleura entire, without grooves for reception of femoral apices at rest. Coxites elongate triangular. Infundibulum present. Distribution. Indian Subcontinent (India; Pakistan; Nepal; Bhutan). China. Included species. Kovář (1997) erected Priscibrumus to accommodate some species from this region, that were earlier placed in the genus Exochomus Redtenbacher. Seven species are known at present from the Palaearctic and Oriental regions of which six are distributed in the Indian subcontinent. Among these, Priscibrumus lituratus and P. uropygialis belong to a complex of very similar species. Based on cytological studies on populations from India (Dalhousie) and Pakistan (Rawalpindi), Smith (1965) supposed that “the group lituratus, certainly, and the group uropygialis, probably, might together embrace at least five cytogenetically different (?sibling) species, some of them differing, other than cytologically, only in subtle physiological properties expressed in somewhat different ecological suitabilities”. Kovář (1997) did not treat the problematic P. uropygialis and P. lituratus complex, due to the lack of sufficient material for study and he also mentioned that Smith’s study material of Priscibrumus spp. was irretrievably lost. Biology. Two Indian species, P. lituratus and P. uropygialis, have been known to feed on adelgids. They have been extensively studied as part of the surveys made by the erstwhile Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control-Indian Station, Bangalore, on the natural enemies of various forest pests, including balsam woolly aphids (Adelges spp. and Pineus laevis Maskell) (Nagarkatti & Ghani 1972). Both were introduced in the US and Canada, where none became established (Sankaran 1976).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".