Agathidium fawcettae Miller and Wheeler 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agathidium fawcettae Miller and Wheeler, 2005 NEW BRUNSWICK: Northumberland Co.: Tabusintac, 19.VI.1939, 20.VI.1939, W.J. Brown, (2, CNC); York Co.: Fredericton, 2.VII.1928, W.J. Brown, (1, CNC); Westmorland Co.: Shediac, 4.VII, 1939, W.J. Brown, (1, CNC). NOVA SCOTIA: One hundred and forty specimens were examined from Annapolis, Colchester, Cumberland, Guysborough, Halifax, Inverness, Lunenburg, Pictou, Queens, Victoria, and Yarmouth counties. The earliest record is from 1929 (Colchester Co.: Portapique, 25.VIII.1929, C.A. Frost, (1, CNC)). Agathidium fawcettae is newly recorded in New Brunswick. It was reported from Nova Scotia by Miller and Wheeler (2005) (Fig. 6). It was collected throughout the year in coniferous and deciduous forests from a wide variety of litter types. In Nova Scotia, it was found in variously aged deciduous forests (red maple, red oak, birch), in coniferous forests (red spruce, black spruce, hemlock, balsam fir), and in mixed and coastal forests. It was collected with flight-intercept traps, pitfall traps, and by hand collecting. There is one record from leaf litter, and one specimen found in a decomposing red spruce log. Recorded hosts include the slime molds Fulgio septica (L.) Wigg., Physarum viride (Bull.) Pers., Leocarpus fragilis (Dicks.) Rost., Hemitrichia clavata (Pers.) Rostaf., and Badhamia sp. (Miller and Wheeler 2005). Prior to the description of this species, several specimens in this series had been identified as Agathidium exiguum Melsheimer. These two species can only be reliably separated on the basis of the features of male genitalia. All the males examined and micro-dissected as part of this study proved to be A. fawcettae. Accordingly, the present authors conclude that there is no evidence that A. exiguum occurs in the region. Miller and Wheeler (2005) reported A. exiguum in North America east to Ontario and north to New Hampshire.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".