Homalota plana AB, MB, NB, NF, NS, AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, IA, ID, IN, MT, NH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
163. Homalota plana (Gyllenhal) ‡ (Illustrations in Klimaszewski et al. 2018), Table 1 References. Gyllenhal 1810. Bernhauer 1907. Benick and Lohse 1974. Moore and Legner 1975. Seevers 1978. Klimaszewski et al. 2007, 2011, 2015a, 2018. Majka and Klimaszewski 2008. Brunke et al. 2021. Webster et al. 2022b. Distribution. Nearctic or Holarctic, status uncertain, recorded from A/S (Klimaszewski et al. 2021). Canada: AB, MB, NB, NF, NS, ON, PE. USA: AZ, CA, CO, IA, ID, IN, MT, NH (NSR), NY, OH, PA, TX. Collection and Habitat data. The two NH adults lacked habitat data; collected in April and May. In Canada found mainly in coniferous forests, also mixed forests, and an old Populus balsamifera forest near a river (Klimaszewski et al. 2018). Adults are usually found under bark of trees such as a Populus sp., yellow birch with fermenting sap, American beech, white pines, and other coniferous trees (Klimaszewski et al. 2018). Material. USA, New Hampshire, Rockingham Co.: Hampton, 20.V.1917, S.A. Shaw, 1 sex?; (Hampton?), 12.IV.1917, (S.A. Shaw), 1 sex? Comments. Sequenced Nearctic specimens from ON form a distinct barcode cluster, separate from all sequenced Palearctic specimens and divergent by 7.58%. This pattern is inconsistent with a species adventive in North America and H. plana was removed from the list of adventive species in Canada (Brunke et al. 2021). Taxonomic status of the Nearctic population is not clear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
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".