Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasioglossum stictaspis species complex Species included Lasioglossum angelicum sp. nov., L. cupreicollis (Friese, 1917), L. diabolicum sp. nov., L. paululum (Sandhouse, 1924), and L. stictaspis (Sandhouse, 1923). Diagnosis The L. stictaspis species complex is a subset of the L. gemmatum complex defined by a cluster of highly similar DNA barcodes (BOLD BINs: ABX4912, AEC8768) containing numerous ʻmixtureʼ associations (as in Ratnasingham & Hebert 2013). No single combination of morphological characters reliably distinguishes the group, but most members have the tegula relatively large compared to most other species of L. gemmatum complex (maximum length half or more ITS and reaching or exceeding posterior margin of mesoscutum in dorsal view) and densely punctate (IS <1 PD) (except L. diabolicum sp. nov.), face short (length/width ratio usually <0.83 in females and <0.86 in males), gena narrower than eye in lateral view, mesoscutum with abundant plumose pubescence about 1 OD long, T2–T4 with abundant tomentum and dense simple setae, and males with dense tomentum covering the face up to level of eye emargination. Lasioglossum cupreicollis is included in this group with some trepidation, as the holotype was not available for examination and no known DNA barcodes are available. However, images of the holotype of Halictus goethalsi Cockerell, 1928 (considered a junior synonym of L. cupreicollis by Michener 1954) were seen, and it closely resembles some members of the L. stictaspis complex. One male specimen from Colombia also has a DNA barcode available and clearly belongs to this group, indicating that its distribution extends into South America. Lasioglossum pseudotegulare is morphologically similar to the L. stictaspis complex except for its longer face (length/width ratio usually ≥ 0.83 in females and ≥ 0.86 in males), but its DNA barcodes are unique and highly divergent, and it is therefore excluded.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".