Bibliographic record
Abstract
<i>58. Sphingidae – sphinx moths; hawk moths</i> Medium-sized to very large (30–180 mm wingspan) moths with robust bodies, a characteristic elongate–triangular forewing, and a relatively small hindwing. Like the Saturniidae, the sphinx moths are part of the “charismatic megafauna” of Lepidoptera and indeed of all insects. Larvae often attract attention because they are large, and most species bear a conspicuous horn on the dorsal tip of the abdomen. Larval host plants include a wide variety of plant groups, although many of the species listed here feed on deciduous trees and shrubs. There are at least 1 200 species of sphingids globally, and the family is most diverse in tropical regions (Lemaire and Minet 1999). Th e North American fauna consists of about 130 species, with 27 species reported from AB. Many sphingids are strong dispersers, and strays from the far south occur occasionally in southern Canada. Three important monographs cover the North American Sphingidae: Rothschild and Jordan (1903), Hodges (1971), and Tuttle (2007). Rothschild and Jordan’s (1903) monumental work encompassed a global revision of the family. Hodges (1971) provided a taxonomic framework and biological information, although the distributions in western Canada were sketchy. Tuttle (2007) provided a wealth of biological information with much better coverage of western Canada. Kitching and Cadiou (2000) provided a complete catalogue of the world Sphingidae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.009 |
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".