Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family * Mastigimatidae Bekker-Migdisova, 1973, stat. nov. Bharatianinae White & Hodkinson, 1985: 272. Comments The taxon was diagnosed by Burckhardt & Ouvrard (2012) and Burckhardt et al. (2018b). The former suggested the following sister group relationships: Bharatiana + Mastigimas and Cecidopsylla + Synpsylla, and Burckhardt et al. (2018b) indicated that Toonapsylla may be closely related to the former clade. Cho et al. (2019) showed that Cecidopsylla and Toonapsylla are not closely related and that the former has a basal position within Psylloidea. For this reason we transfer Cecidopsylla to Aphalaridae. Toonapsylla shares a series of morphological characters with Bharatiana + Mastigimas (Burckhardt et al. 2018b), supporting the monophyly of the three genera. Synpsylla resembles Cecidopsylla in the shape of the head, antennae and forewings but there are also important differences such as absence/presence of submedian ridges on the metapostnotum or number and arrangement of the apical metatibial spurs. Awaiting new evidence, we leave Synpsylla in the Mastigimatidae. Included genera Bharatiana Mathur, 1973; * Mastigimas Enderlein, 1921 (syn. Coelocara); Synpsylla Yang, 1984; Toonapsylla Burckhardt, 2018 in Burckhardt et al. (2018b).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.049 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".