Bibliographic record
Abstract
CHRYSOCTONUS Mathot, 1966 (Figs 68–74) Chrysoctonus Mathot, 1966: 224. Type species: Chrysoctonus apterus Mathot, 1966, by monotypy. See Huber et al. (2020) for generic synonyms and their type species. Diagnosis. Female wingless (Figs, 71, 73, 74); ocelli absent (Figs 68, 73, 74); funicle variable (Figs 69, 70), with 4– 7 segments; mesosoma short, higher than wide, with pronotum, mesoscutum and scutellum all about equal in length (Figs 71, 73, 74); petiole shorter than wide, barely visible (Figs 72a,b). Male fully winged, with venation extending almost 0.6× fore wing length; flagellum 11-segmented, with each funicle segment several times as long as wide. Remarks. Huber et al. (2021) placed Chrysoctonus in the Borneomymar group of genera but this is probably wrong. It is tentatively placed here in the Arescon group of genera because the males have a long venation, resembling that of Arescon. The flagellar segments are narrower and longer than in Arescon males. Chrysoctonus is the only genus of the group with wingless females. Males differ from those in the other genera in the group in having the mandible with 3 teeth instead of 4 teeth. Chrysoctonus could perhaps also be placed in the Ooctonus group of genera because of the large gt 1 and mandible with 3 teeth. Neotropical hosts. Unknown. Distribution. No named species in the Neotropical region. Luft Albarracin et al. (2014) recorded the genus from Argentina. Specimens examined are from at least 15 countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean islands (CNC, UCRC). Important references. Huber & Triapitsyn (2015), 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".