Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nomada tiftonensis Cockerell Figures 31, 32, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44 Nomada tiftonensis Cockerell 1903: 610 [Holotype: Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, ♂; label data: “[USA] Tifton, Ga. [Georgia]// P20// Type No. 10165 [red label]// N. tiftonensis Ckll Type // ANSP"]; Mitchell 1962: 355 [synonymy with N. heiligbrodti]. Nomada modesta rivertonensis Cockerell 1903:610 [Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Ψ; label data: “[USA] Riverton NJ [New Jersey] viii.31 [31 August]// Type No. 10158 [red label]// N. modesta v. rivertonensis Ckll Type // 1980 loan to USNM from Acad. of Nat. Sciences at Philadelphia// ANSP”] [head is knocked off]; Mitchell 1962: 355 [synonymy with N. heiligbrodti]. Diagnosis. Males and females of N. tiftonensis are most similar to N. texana. See Diagnosis under that species for identifying characters. Distribution. Nomada tiftonensis is known from Georgia north to Maine and west to Ontario and Wisconsin. Material examined. 29 specimens were examined from ME, GA, NJ, NH, IN, MD, ON, SC, MI, NY, and WI. Molecular results. We obtained DNA barcoding data from seven specimens of N. tiftonensis (five females and two males) sampled from widely separated localities (Ontario, Maryland, and South Carolina) (Table 1). The sequence divergence among these specimens ranged from 0–0.2% Variation. In N. tiftonensis, most male specimens have a completely black supraclypeal area, while others have vague yellowish patches present, and a few have solid yellow blocks (Fig. 42). In male N. tiftonensis the labrum varies from completely yellow to nearly all dark; the labrum in all observed N. texana males was completely yellow. See further comments about observed character variation under N. texana. Comments. See Comments under N. texana.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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".