Acrotona brachyoptera Klimaszewski and Webster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acrotona brachyoptera Klimaszewski and Webster Distribution Origin Nearctic Distribution Canada: MB, NB, ON; USA: not recorded New provincial Canada: Manitoba: Moose Lake, 2016-IX-19, 49.2018°N, 95.3423°W, 353 m, records mushroom, sifting, B. Godin & D. Horwood (BGC) 1 male, 5 females; same locality data (LFC) 2 females; Adam Lake, 2016-IX-11, 49.0508° N, 100.0666°W, 689 m, mushrooms, sifting, B. Godin & D. Horwood (LFC) 1 male, 3 females. References Webster et al. 2016, Klimaszewski et al. 2018 Collection and habitat data. Habitat (outside of the study area). In old red maple (Acer rubrum L.) forest, mixed forests, a wet alder (Alnus sp.) swamp, a mature red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) and red maple forest, a rich Appalachian hardwood forest, in a Carex marsh, small sedge marsh, marsh with scattered alders, in old-growth eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.) swamps and forests, and in 8.5-year-old regenerating mixed forests. Adults in moss and litter near brooks, in moss and litter at the base of cedar, in moss and litter in red spruce and cedar forests, in leaf litter under alders near a stream, in leaf litter and grass on hummocks in a wet alder swamp, in grass litter and sphagnum in marshes, moist leaves on the margin of a vernal pool, in sphagnum and leaf litter at the bottom of old tire depressions, and one specimen was collected from a gilled mushroom. Collecting period. III–IX. Collecting method. Sifting various kinds of litter.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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; 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".