Procloeon (Monilistylus) monilistylus monilistylus Kluge, Tiunova & Novikova 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procloeon (Monilistylus) monilistylus Kluge, Tiunova & Novikova 2014 (Figs 1–2, 24–25, 52–54) Cloeon (Centroptilum) sp. 1: Kluge & Novikova 1992: 64 (larva). Cloeon monilistylus: Tiunova 2003: 9 (nomen nudum). Procloeon /g 1 sp.: Kluge 2011: 375. Procloeon monilistylus Kluge, Tiunova & Novikova 2014: 484 (larva, subimago, male imago, female imago, egg). Material examined. Holotype and paratypes (Kluge et al. 2014). Comments. Larva, subimago, male imago, female imago and egg of this species are described in our previous paper (Kluge et al. 2014). In the original description, mandibles were shown only in dorsal view (Kluge et al. 2014: figs 5–6). In such view, shapes of kinetodontia and left prostheca are unclear, because their flatness is perpendicular to the general flatness of the mandible. Here, the left kinetodontium and the left prostheca are shown as they are visible on the mandible, if pressed on a slide (Figs 24–25). The shape of right kinetodontium of P. (M.) monilistylus is the same as in P. (M.) ornatipennis sp. n. (as in Fig. 19). The fine setae of the larval leg were not shown (Kluge et al. 2014: fig. 22). Judging by the setal sockets visible on slide in Canadian balsam, long setae of the tibial base are arranged in the same manner as in P. (M.) monilistylus (as in Fig. 31). Genital muscles of P. (M.) monilistylus were inaccurately figured and wrongly interpreted in the original description. Corrected drawings are given here (Figs 52–53).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".