Omorgus (Omorgus) indigenus Scholtz 1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omorgus (Omorgus) indigenus Scholtz, 1990 Fig. 4 Omorgus (Omorgus) indigenus Scholtz 1990: 1411 (original description); Zidek 2013: 11 (checklist); Zidek 2017: 102 (checklist). Omorgus indigenus: Morrone 2001: 63 (mention); Deloya 2005: 122 (checklist); Morrone 2014: 62 (mention, biogeography). Type specimens examined. Holotype, by original designation (♂ CMNC). First label [white, typeset]: “ ECU: Galap; Espanola / Bahia Manzanilla / 5–10. VI. 85, S & J Peck / Prospis grove behind / beach, carrion traps ”. Second label [white with black border, printed]: “ [QR code] / Canadian Museum of / Musée canadien de la / NATURE / CMNCEN 00011596 ”. Third label [white with red border, Clarke Scholtz’s handwriting]: Omorgus / indigenous / C. H. Scholtz 1988 / HOLOTYPE ”. Type locality: “ Bahia Manzanilla, Española Is., Galapagos ” [Ecuador]. Paratypes examined: ECUADOR – Galapagos • 15; Española Is., Bahia Manzanilla; Prosopis grove behind beach; carrion traps; 5–10 Jun. 1985; S. & J. Peck leg.; CMNC • 2; same collection data; NHMUK. Geographic distribution. Endemic to Galapagos Islands [Ecuador]. Non-type examined material (24 specimens). ECUADOR – Galapagos • 3; Española Is., Bahia Manzanilla; 5–10 Jun. 1985; S. & J. Peck leg.; CMNC • 15; Galapagos, Española Is., Bahia Manzanilla; 25 Apr. – 2 May 1985; S. Peck leg.; CMNC • 6; Galapagos, Española Is., Pta. Suarez; 2 Jun. 1992; S. Peck leg.; CMNC.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".