Bibliographic record
Abstract
156 Euura latibasis (Lindqvist, 1949) Figs 152, 387 Pteronidea latibasis Lindqvist, 1949: 77–79. Diagnosis Females are from nearly completely pale to mostly black dorsally, and pale ventrally. Externally and based on the lancet, most similar to E. dorsata and E. fuscarima (E. bipartita group). Lamnium is 1.8–1.9 times as long as radix in E. latibasis (n = 1), but about 2.0–2.4 times as long in E. dorsata (n = 2) and 2.3–2.8 times as long in E. fuscarima (n = 2), but the difference might not hold for E. latibasis and E. dorsata. The middle and apical sutures of the lancet of E. fuscarima might also be more straight than in E. latibasis. Euura seriepunctata and E. serela sp. nov. have also quite a similar lancet, but the serrulae seem to be less protruding and the lamnium is 2.3–2.4 (n = 1) times as long as the radix in E. seriepunctata (the proportions could be similar in E. serela based on one basally damaged lancet). Type material examined Holotype Pteronidea latibasis FINLAND – Varsinais-Suomi • ♀; Pargas (Parainen); 60.305° N, 22.301° E; leg. E. Reuter leg,; MZH, http://id.luomus.fi/GL.3505. Notes Best morphological fit: ZMUO.035649. Host plants Unknown. Genetics COI Based on 3 specimens, maximum within-species distance is 0.15% and the nearest neighbour, diverging by a minimum of 1.67%, is Euura dorsata. Nuclear Based on 2 specimens, maximum within-species distance is 0% (0.02% based on haplotypes of individual females). The nearest neighbour, diverging by a minimum of 0.33%, is Euura lienterica. Distribution and material examined Palaearctic. Specimens studied are from Finland.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.008 |
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".