Lypoglossa franclemonti Hoebeke 1992
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lypoglossa franclemonti Hoebeke, 1992 Fig 51, Map 51 New Records. CANADA, New Brunswick, Restigouche Co., MacFarlane Brook Protected Natural Area, 47.6018°N, 67.6263°W, 25.V.2007 (1 ♀, RWC). Saint John Co., Dipper Harbour, 45.1176°N, 66.3806°W, 24.VIII.2006, 12.IX.2006 (2 ♁, 1 ♀, 1 sex undetermined, RWC); Dipper Harbour, 45.1169°N, 66.3771°W, 7.V.2006, 15.V.2006 (2 ♀, 2 sex undetermined, RWC). Bionomic Notes. In New Brunswick, L. franclemonti were collected from decaying sea wrack under alders on the upper margin of a sea beach, on decaying gilled mushrooms in a red spruce forest adjacent to a salt marsh, and in moss and leaves under alders in an old-growth eastern white cedar forest. Gusarov (2004) reported this species as common in forest litter and moss on forest floor. In New Brunswick, adults were collected in May, August, and September, suggesting that adults overwinter. Collection method: sifting. Map 5Į. Collection localities in New Brunswick, Canada of Lypoglossa franclemonti. 52 53 54 Figures 49–54. 49 Earota dentata 50 Geostiba circellaris 5Į Lypoglossa franclemonti 52 Mocyta breviuscula 53 Philhygra angusticauda 54 P. botanicarum [53, 54, apical part of abdomen removed]. Scale = 1 mm Distribution in Canada and Alaska. NT, AB, MB, ON, QC, NB, NS (Gusarov 2004; Gouix and Klimaszewski 2007).
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.007 |
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".