Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlorochroa congrua Uhler, 1876 Distribution: Canada: AB (Scudder & Thomas 1987). United States: CO, ID (Van Duzee 1904, 1917), MT, NM (Townsend 1894), UT (Uhler 1893; Van Duzee 1904, 1917; Pack & Knowlton 1930; Knowlton 1931, Hayward 1948), WY. Comments: Buxton et al. (1983) did not list specific localities for the species they treated, but rather they provided distribution maps with spots on specific localities. They indicated that this species mainly occurs at higher altitudes, so it might have a relatively confined distribution - they provided spots in only three states: Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. There are, however, several other records from neighboring states near the localities given on the Buxton et al. (1983) map: Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah (see citations above), which might be valid. On the other hand, several other states have been cited that might be based on misidentifications: California (Van Duzee 1917, Larson 1927), Oregon (Larson & Hinman 1932), and Washington (Zack et al. 2012).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".