Claustropyga aperta Hippa, Vilkamaa & Mohrig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Claustropyga aperta Hippa, Vilkamaa & Mohrig Fig. 2 C–F Claustropyga aperta Hippa, Vilkamaa & Mohrig, 2003: 487. New records. CANADA, British Columbia, Vancouver Island, Upper Carmanah Valley, forest floor, Malaise trap, 21.VI.–3.VII.1991, N. Winchester, 1 male (RBCM), same data but 28.VIII.–9.IX.1991, 1 male (CNC), same data but 17.–26.X.1991, 1 male (CNC). Discussion. Claustropyga aperta was previously known only from the holotype male and 4 paratype males found at high altitudes (3200–3400 m) in Austria. The hypopygia in the specimens from Vancouver Island (Fig. 2 E) seem very similar to that of the holotype except for the tegmen, which has the posterior margin medially less produced, and the lateral sides, which are less strongly concave than in the holotype; the tegmen of the holotype resembles in this respect C. simplicis, Fig. 2 A. One of the specimens from Vancouver Island differs from the other two as well as from the types by having three-segmented maxillary palps instead of two-segmented ones. Variation in the number of palpomeres occurs also in many other Claustropyga (Hippa, Vilkamaa & Mohrig 2003). Although we have some doubts, we regard the British Columbia specimens as conspecific with the European ones.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".