Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spilogona lapponica (Ringdahl, 1932) Figs 5 B–G Limnophora (Spilogonoides) lapponica Ringdahl, 1932: 158. Type-locality: “Ich fing die Art in zwei männlichen Stücken am Strande vom Torneträsk (Regio subarkt.) in dem nördlichsten Lappland, Juli” [SWEDEN, Torne Lappmark]. Spilogona compacta Huckett, 1965: 198, 208 (key), and 214. Type locality: “ Indian House Lake, Quebec, 7.30 ... 54 [i.e. 30.vii.1954], W.R. Richards ” [CANADA, Quebec] [seen]. Syn. nov. Spilogona lapponica (Ringdahl, 1932); Tridrikh & Sorokina, 2021: 827, 830 (Magadan region). Notes. The type material of Spilogona compacta (in Canadian National Collection) and European and Asian specimens of Spilogona lapponica were examined. The descriptions of both species and the male terminalia are the same. Males of this species are very distinctive with a very broad frons; a stout thick abdomen with an unusually large sternite 5 (Fig. 5B, F); costa with a strong costal spine in both sexes (Figs 5D, E); mid tibia usually with ad setae and hind femur usually with several short pv setae. I conclude that Spilogona compacta Huckett, 1965 is a new junior synonym of Spilogona lapponica (Ringdahl, 1932). There is no description of the female of Spilogona lapponica in Hennig (1959b), but there is the description of the female of Spilogona compacta in Huckett (1965: 215). Additional material examined. RUSSIA, Magadan area: 3♂♂ 2♀♀, ~ 100 km NNE Seimchan, Nature Reserve “Magadansky”, valley of Suksukan River, 63°39’N 153°17’E, thickets of young willow, sweeping in grass, 17.vii.2019, leg. N. Tridrikh (SZMN). Distribution. PALAEARCTIC: Norway, Russia (Europe, Far East), Sweden. NEARCTIC: Alaska, Quebec.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".