Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suragina Walker, 1859 Suragina Walker, 1859: 110. Type species. Suragina illucens Walker, 1859 by monotypy. Diagnosis. Suragina is most similar to the genus Atrichops with which it shares elongated legs and the hind coxa with a stout apical point or spine-like projection on its anteroventral surface. Similarly, Atrichops is also haematophagous, with well-developed mandibles. However, Atrichops has a knoblike proepimeral process (somewhat reduced in Afrotropical species) that is absent in Suragina. Additionally, Suragina has its frons usually contrasting velvety-black on the upper half and silvery-grey on the lower half (especially evident in ♀), whereas the frons in Atrichops is more concolorous. The antennal bases are comparatively widely separated in Suragina, and close together in Atrichops. Suragina typically has a tibial spur ratio of 0: 2: 2 (1: 2: 2 in some specimens of S. binominata (Bequaert, 1921)), while Atrichops has a ratio of 0: 1: 2. There is also a substantial difference in the morphology of the male terminalia, with Suragina having the gonostylus inserted apically and the parameral sheath simple apically, compared to Atrichops having the gonostylus inserted subapically, sometimes even medially on the gonocoxite (e. g. Atrichops intermedius Muller, 2023 in Muller et al. 2023) and the parameral sheath ending with outward projections. Woodley (2017: 887) provided a key to the known genera of Afrotropical Athericidae. Key to the Afrotropical species of Suragina Walker (excluding S. disciclara and S. pilitarsis)
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".