Apis aquitaniensis de Rilly 1930
Bibliographic record
Abstract
† Apis aquitaniensis de Rilly ‘‘Abeille Aquitanienne’’ de Rilly, 1924: 309. Apis aquitaniensis de Rilly, 1949: 125. COMMENTS: Rilly first mentioned this fossil in a brief article in an apicultural serial (Rilly, 1924) but simply referred to the species with a vernacular. The first proposal of a Latinized epithet for the same fossil appeared a quarter of a century later (Rilly, 1949). Rilly’s figures and ‘‘descriptive’’ comments are poor and do not permit authoritative identification. His material is reported to have been deposited in the Museum de Marseille (Roussy, 1937). Repeated letters to directors and curators of this institution, however, have failed to invoke any response. From the little available evidence it is likely that this is a synonym of A. henshawi. Until the holotype can be located and examined, it is retained as a separate species but of uncertain taxonomic status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".