Lasioglossum (Dialictus) obnubilum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) obnubilum (Sandhouse, 1924) Figure 6 Halictus (Chloralictus) obnubilus Sandhouse 1924: 28 (holotype, ♂, deposited in USNM; examined) Lasioglossum (Dialictus) lilliputense Gibbs 2010: 178 (holotype, ♀, deposited in PCYU; examined) new synonymy Lasioglossum (Chloralictus) obnubilum – Michener 1951: 1115 (catalogue) Dialictus obnubilus – Hurd 1979: 1969 (catalogue) – Moure and Hurd 1987: 117 (catalogue) Diagnosis. Males of L. obnubilum can be recognised by the combination of their small size (body length 4–4.5 mm; ITD ∼ 0.7 mm), face relatively long (length/width ratio ∼ 0.93), mesepisternum and central mesoscutum finely and moderately densely punctate (IS = 1–2 PD), propodeum relatively smooth with weak rugae, metasomal sterna with very short, sparse, thin hair, face with dense tomentum limited to paraocular area and upper clypeus, clypeus apical margin, flagellum, legs, tegula, and wings all dark brown, and head and mesosoma blue–green to olive green. They are most similar to an undescribed species that occurs at lower elevations in the southern United States of America. This species has the mesepisternum and mesoscutum more coarsely and densely punctate (IS <1 PD), face covered in dense tomentum below eye emargination, and head and mesosoma blue to blue–green. They are also somewhat similar to L. brunneiventre and L. macroprosopum. Both of these species have very long, dense, plumose hair on the metasomal sterna, the flagellum ventral surface and tarsi orange, and a more western distribution not including the Rocky Mountains. Comments. Lasioglossum obnubilum was described from the male only (Sandhouse 1924). There have been no published records of this species outside of Colorado, United States of America. Lasioglossum lilliputense was described based on morphology and DNA barcode data from female specimens collected in British Columbia, Canada and Idaho and Montana, United States of America (Gibbs 2010). It was suggested at the time of its description that L. lilliputense could be the female of L. obnubilum. Examination of additional material, including males and females of L. obnubilum from the same locality, confirms this interpretation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".