Bibliographic record
Abstract
ANAGROIDEA Girault, 1915 (Figs 19–24) Anagroidea Girault, 1915 [228]: 164. Type species: Eustochus dubius Girault, 1913, by original designation. See Huber et al. (2020) for generic synonyms and their type species. Diagnosis. Head and mesosoma with distinctly raised, reticulate sculpture (Figs 19, 22); head in lateral view with face angular (Fig. 24); mandibles directed ventrally, not crossing medially when closed (Fig. 19a), operating in an anterior/posterior direction; antenna double geniculate (Fig. 20); hind wing often with membrane extending narrowly to base of venation, wing width near apex as wide as at level of hamuli, and with widely rounded apex (Fig. 21); foretibial spur comb-like. Remarks. Anagroidea appears to be closely related to Cleruchus group of genera. It is placed in its own group because of the mandibles that move in an anteroposterior direction, unlike any other genus of Mymaridae in the Western Hemisphere but as in Eubroncus Yoshimoto, Kozlov & Trjapitzin, the sister genus to Anagroidea, and Ceratanaphes Noyes & Valentine, and Old World genus in the Cleruchus group. Neotropical hosts. Unknown. Distribution. No species are described from the Neotropical Region but specimens have been collected from about 10 countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean islands (in CNC and UCRC). Important reference. Huber et al. (2020).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".