Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family Halictophagidae Perkins 1905: 98 The family Halictophagidae was erected by Perkins (1905). Yang (1964) subdivided the family into two subfamilies: Halictophaginae and Tridactylophaginae. Kinzelbach (1970) erected a new subfamily Coriophaginae, and Kathirithamby (1989, 1992) added two more subfamilies, Dipterophaginae and Blattodeaphaginae. In 1985, Drew and Allwood erected a new family Dipterophagidae to incorporate the species Dipterophagus daci from Australia which parasitizes fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Kathirithamby (1989) argued that due to several synapormorphies shared with the family Halictophagidae that Dipterophagidae is a subfamily within this family. However, Drew and Allwood in 1996 reelevated Dipterophagidae to family level on the basis that the male has 6 antennal segments with flabella on the 3rd segment and the female with a bellshaped cephalothorax. However, male D. Daci have: 3segmented tarsi which lack claws; short mandibles that do not overlap; short 2segmented maxilla; peaked VIIIth abdominal sternite and a hooked aedeagus. Female D. daci have: the head extended over the thorax and a large brood canal. These male and female characters are shared autopomorphic characters of the family Halictophagidae. Therefore, D. daci belongs to the family Halictophagidae. Drew & Allwood (1985) and Allwood & Drew (1996) erection of this species to a new family is incorrect. Only one subfamily Halictophaginae, and one genus Halictophagus, has been found Canada and the USA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".