Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genus Cenocimbex Nel, 2004 Figs. 2, 3E–F. Type species C. menatensis Nel, 2004. Emended diagnosis. Separated from all other Cenocimbicinae by R before base of pterostigma with dark triangular sclerite reaching 1-Rs+M near 1m-cu [vs. sclerotization not apparent, either absent or pale, small]; by wing broad, estimated length/width 2.5 [all others ca. 2.8 or more]; by cell 3rm short (2r-m to 3r-m length ≤ 3r-m [vs. distinctly longer]); from Leptostigma n. gen. also by pterostigma broad, maximum height distinctly more than height of C to R basal to pterostigma [Leptostigma n. gen.: similar in height to C to R basal to pterostigma]. Hind wing with r-m, m-cu and cu-a only moderately distant from each other (for about length of m-cu, so cu-a at about midlength cell mcu) [in other genera usually well before mid-length]. Remarks. Sclerotisation on R near the pterostigma, even though of much lesser size, is clearly seen in an extant cimbicine, see Vilhelmsen et al. 2018, Fig. 2B). Locality and age. Menat Formation; Puy-de-Dôme, France; Selandian. Species included. Type species only.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".