Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amaurochrous cinctipes (Say, 1828) New state record: Ohio: Ottawa Co.: Crank Creek St. Pk., 15-IV-1995, M. O’Brien (1♂ UMMZ). Distribution: Canada: ON, QC. United States: AR, CT (Parshley 1917, 1923a; Britton 1920; O’Donnell & Schaefer 2012), DC, DE, GA (Scott & Fiske 1902), IA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD (Brown & Bahr 2008), ME (Roch 2020), MI, MN, MO, NC, ND (Rider 2012), NE, NH (Parshley 1917), NJ, NY, OH, OK (Arnold & Drew 1988, Kondratieff et al. 2005), PA, SC, TN (Howden & Crossley 1961), TX, VA (Hoffman 1971), VT (Roch 2020), WI (Stål 1872). Comments: It is possible that some of the records of this species and of the next, Amaurochrous dubius, have been confused. The two species are obviously very closely related. In fact, Barber & Sailer (1953) stated “there is some reason to question the status of cinctipes as a species distinct from dubius.” They further indicated that intermediates between the two species were known. Apparently, this is a more northern form.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".