Bibliographic record
Abstract
NEOMYMAR Crawford, 1913 (Figs 188–192) Neomymar Crawford, 1913: 351. Type species: Neomymar vierecki Crawford, 1913, by original designation. See Huber et al. (2020) for the generic synonym and its type species. Diagnosis. Face without subantennal sulcus ventral to each torulus, without a pit medially next to each torulus and toruli abutting transverse trabecula (Fig. 188a); upper orbit of eye with long, thick, apically blunt seta next to break between anterior and posterior sections of supraorbital trabecula; funicle segments usually with dark base and light apex (Fig. 189); propleura abutting each other anterior to prosternum; fore wing narrow for half its length before distinctly widening (Fig. 190), the widened part usually with an apical brown spot and sometimes also a basal one; propodeum without carinae (Fig. 191); petiole attached posteriorly to gs 1. Remarks. Neomymar belongs to the Polynema group of genera. Mymar, Neomymar and Tetrapolynema are the only genera of the group that have the toruli in contact with the transverse trabecula. Neomymar is distinguished most easily by the combination of a narrow fore wing that suddenly widens distally and often with a apical brown spot, funicle segments usually with dark base and light apex and body colour often yellow. The strong, blunt setae dorsally on the head and mesosoma are also fairly characteristic. Three described species have the apical funicle segment enlarged, as wide as clava. Neotropical hosts. Unknown. Important references. Fidalgo (1992), Triapitsyn et al. (2006).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.010 |
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".