Arcuphantes arcuatulus Chamberlin & Ivie 1943
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arcuphantes arcuatulus Chamberlin & Ivie, 1943 Figs 2A–E, 3A–C, 4, 7A–B Linyphia arcuata Keyserling, 1886: 74, pl. 13, f. 173 (Df; preoccupied by Thorell, 1856). Lepthyphantes arcuatus Petrunkevitch, 1911: 244. Lepthyphantes arcuatulus Roewer, 1942: 560 (replacement name). Arcuphantes arcuatus Chamberlin & Ivie, 1943: 21, f. 37-40 (Tf from Lepthyphantes, Dm; specific name is a primary homonym replaced by Roewer); Tu & Hormiga, 2010: 61, f. 2a-f, 9a (f). Material examined. 1♂, USA: Washington: Arlington, 48°N, 122°W, 9.ix.1935, Chamberlin & Ivie leg. (AMNH-161); 1♀ Washington: 10 miles north of Vancouver, 45°N, 122°W, 10.ix.1935, Chamberlin & Ivie leg. (AMNH-165). Diagnosis. The male A. arcuatulus can be distinguished from A. cruciatus n. sp., and A. denticulatus n. sp. by the bifid outer paracymbial arm with a blunt inner apophysis (Fig. 7B), and by the terminal apophysis having the anterior process turning backwards (Fig. 7A). The female can be distinguished by the epigynum in ventral view more slender than that of A. cruciatus n. sp., the prolonged basal part under the extensible base is almost square, with the parallel lateral margins slightly incurved (Fig. 3A–C). Description. Male (AMNH-161): Total length 1.94. Carapace 0.78 long, 0.63 wide. Abdomen 1.11 long, 0.53 wide. Female (AMNH-165): Total length 1.26. Carapace 0.57 long, 0.54 wide. Abdomen 0.75 long, 0.49 wide. Legs broken, data on leg lengths absent. Other somatic and genital characters: see the general description for the Arcuphantes species with arcuatulus - type genitalia. Distribution. USA (Washington).
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".