Hoplandria (Hoplandria) laeviventris Casey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
181. Hoplandria (Hoplandria) laeviventris Casey (Illustrations in Génier 1989, Klimaszewski et al. 2018), Table 1 References. Casey 1910. Génier 1989. Brunke et al. 2012. Klimaszewski et al. 2018. Distribution. Nearctic. Canada: ON. USA: AL, AR, CT, DC, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME (NSR), NH (NSR), NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, TN, TX, VA, WV. Collection and Habitat data. The NH specimens were captured in oak, beech and huckleberry litter along bog margins, and in a pine-oak barrens. Collected from May to September by flight intercept and pitfall traps. Elsewhere found in deciduous and white pine forests, in various kinds of leaf litter, Rhododendron litter, leaf litter in deep crevices, litter and mushrooms, oak-hickory duff, dry oak litter, and in carrion (e.g. dead mouse) (Génier 1989, Brunke et al. 2012). Material. USA, Maine, York Co.: West Lebanon, 15–21.VII.1991, D.W. Barry, FIT, 1 female. New Hampshire, Hillsborough Co.: 3 mi SE Brookline, Nissitissit River, 23.V–7.VI.1996, 6–16.VI.1996, 23.VIII–13.IX.1996, D.S. Chandler, FITrap, 4 males, 1 female. Merrimack Co.: 1 mi E Concord, Concord Airport, CZ-4a, 30.V–12.VI.2001, 13–26.VI.2001, D.S. Chandler, pine-oak barrens, pitfall trap, 2 males, 1 female; 12–19.V.2001, 9–22.VIII.2001, 22.VIII–7.IX, FIT, 2 males, 2 females, 1 sex? Strafford Co.: Spruce Hole, 3 mi SW Durham, 9.VI.1982, D.S. Chandler, sift oak, beech & huckleberry litter along bog margins, 1 female.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".