Anagrus (Anagrus) daanei : Triapitsyn 1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anagrus (Anagrus) daanei Triapitsyn, 1998 Anagrus (Anagrus) daanei Triapitsyn, 1998: 93. Holotype ♀ (USNM). TL: USA, California, Reedley, Smeds vineyard. Anagrus epos: Scott, 1933: 6 [misidentification (Triapitsyn 1998)] (anatomy, biology); Doutt & Nakata, 1965: 586 [apparent misidentification in part (Trjapitzin 1995)] (biology, ecology); Doutt et al., 1966: 14 [apparent misidentification in part (Triapitsyn 1998)] (overwintering refuge); Jensen et al. 1969: 9 [misidentification in part]; McKenzie & Beirne, 1972: 1230 [apparent misidentification in part (Triapitsyn 1998), see under avalae] (biology); Doutt & Nakata, 1973: 382 [misidentification in part (Trjapitzin 1995)] (biology); Seyedoleslami & Croft, 1980: 625 [misidentification in part (Triapitsyn 1998) (host)]; Williams, 1984: 1 [apparent misidentification in part] (ecology); González et al., 1988: 25 [apparent misidentification in part] (ecology); Pickett et al., 1989: 552 [apparent misidentification in part] (biotype evaluation); Settle & Wilson, 1990a, 1462 [apparent misidentification in part] (parasitism rate); Settle & Wilson, 1990b: 878 [apparent misidentification in part] (behavior); Corbett et al., 1996: 30 [misidentification (Triapitsyn 1998)] (labelling with rubidium); De Santis & Fidalgo, 1994: 122 (catalogue) [NT]; Boivin, 1994: 237 (overwintering strategy); Corbett & Rosenheim, 1996b: 36 [misidentification (Triapitsyn 1998)] (tracking movement with fluorescent dye); Boivin, 2010b: 14 (number of larval instars). Anagrus sp. A, near epos: Trjapitzin, 1995: 250 (previous misidentification, distribution). Anagrus (Anagrus) daanei: Triapitsyn, 1998: 82 (key); Triapitsyn et al., 2010: 5 (key), 6 (description, distribution, hosts); Triapitsyn, 2015b: 12 (key), 30 (description, distribution). Anagrus daanei: Williams III & Martinson, 2000: 139 (hosts, overwintering sites); Martinson et al., 2001: 227 (insecticide and fungicide toxicity); James, 2005: 484 (attraction to synthetic plant volatiles); Morse & Stouthamer, 2005: 375 (collecting from host plant); Prischmann et al., 2005: 132 (managed and unmanaged vineyards); Morse & Stouthamer, 2006: 96 (molecular identification); Morse & Stouthamer, 2007: 95 (molecular identification); Prischmann et al., 2007: 43 (abundance, phenology on blackberry and wild rose; Jepsen et al., 2007: 600 (sulphur effect on reproduction); Wright & James, 2007: 19 (host plant, distribution); Lowery et al., 2007: 9 (host plant associations); Segoli & Rosenheim, 2013a: 1225 (fecundity, longevity); Segoli & Rosenheim, 2013b: 2499 (reproductive success); Segoli, 2016: 140 (density dependent parasitism); Wilson et al., 2016: 602 (leafhopper and plant hosts in CA); Wilson & Triapitsyn, 2017: 53 (mention). Nearctic hosts. Cicadellidae:? Dikrella spp., Edwardsiana rosae (L.), Erasmoneura variabilis (Beamer), Erythroneura anfracta Beamer, E. bistrata McAtee, E. comes (Say), E. elegantula Osborn, E. ziczac Walsh, Zonocyba pomaria (McAtee). Distribution. Canada: BC. USA: CA, MI, NY, WA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
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".