Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key to species of Aethodelphax (males) 1. Segment 10 in lateral view with pair of short ventral processes (or large teeth) near midpoint in addition to distal paired processes (Figs. 3 H, 7G, 8H)............................................................................... 2 1’ Segment 10 in lateral view lacking a pair of ventral processes near midline (distal paired processes present)............. 4 2. Aedeagus straight or slightly sinuate in lateral view with a lateral flange on one or both sides (Figs. 3 F–H, 8F–H); outer angle of parameres acute or acuminate; segment 10 with midventral processes ventrally directed........................... 3 2’ Aedeagus curved ventrad in lateral view, large flange lacking (Figs. 7 F–G); outer angle of parameres rounded; segment 10 with midventral processes lateroventrally directed; MS............................ paraparvulus (Beamer), comb. nov. 3. Aedeagus with subapical, dorsal tooth (Figs. 8 F–H), lateral expansion of aedeagus without large acuminate tooth; apices of outer angles of parameres acute; FL, GA, LA...................................... sagittatus (Beamer), comb. nov. 3’ Aedeagus without subapical, dorsal tooth (Figs. 3 F–H), with large, acuminate flange on left side; apices of outer angles or parameres acuminate; FL......................................................... alatus (Beamer), comb. nov. 4. Aedeagus strongly curved ventrad (Figs. 2 F–G); genital diaphragm bearing pair of subdorsal pegs, one on either side of aedeagus in repose; diaphragm armature not dorsally projecting; FL, LA, MS, TX.......... aetocephalus (Beamer), comb. nov. 4’ Aedeagus not strongly curved ventrad (aedeagus may be ventrally concave); genital diaphragm lacking subdorsal pegs, diaphragm armature dorsally projecting...................................................................... 5 5. Segment 10 in lateral view robust with small ventral excavation at base of distal paired processes (Figs. 4 G, 5G).......... 6 5’ Segment 10 in lateral view dorsoventrally flattened, with broadly rounded excavation at base of distal paired processes (Figs. 1 H, 6H)............................................................................................. 7 6. Aedeagus broadly flattened laterally bearing symmetrical teeth (Figs. 4 F–G); genital diaphragm armature weakly projecting dorsally; AZ, Mexico .......................................................... caninus (Beamer), comb. nov. 6’ Aedeagus tubular, not flattened laterally, lacking preapical ventral teeth; diaphragm armature dorsally projecting, taller than wide; FL, TN................................................................ concavus (Beamer), comb. nov. 7. Aedeagus with large dorsal concavity near midlength (Figs. 1 F–H), subtended proximally by dorsal pectinate structure; aedeagal suspensorium strongly reflexed at midlength (Fig. 1 H); Manitoba and MI to NE................. prairianus sp. nov. 7’ Aedeagus lacking large dorsal concavity and pectinate (Figs. 6 F–H); aedeagal suspensorium straight; KS, MN,WI.................................................................................. megadontus (Beamer), comb. nov.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.009 |
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 it