Bibliographic record
Abstract
Araneus iviei (Archer 1951) Material examined.— Canada: Québec: RouynNoranda: Labyrinthe Lake [48°14’N, 79°29’W] 29.vii.–04.viii.1996, pitfall in White cedar/Balsam fir forest, 1ɗ, P. Paquin & N. Dupérré (CPAD); BaieJames (Jamésie): Villebois [49°01’N, 79°08’W] 13.–20.vii.1997, flight interception trap in mature Black spruce forest, 1ɗ, P. Paquin & N. Dupérré (CPAD). Diagnosis.— Araneus ivei superficially resembles A. trifolium but the males differ from all other Araneus species by the shape of the embolus and conductor, the nearly straight elongate terminal apophysis, and the small pointed terminal spine of the median apophysis. Females are distinguished by a domeshaped epigynum and a rather smooth elongate scape enlarging distally. Distribution.— Widespread species in Canada, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia with a few records in eastern US from Michigan to Pennsylvania. Remark.— The occurrence of the species in Québec was suspected by Hutchinson & Bélanger (1994) and Paquin et al. (2001). Paquin & Dupérré (2003) included A. iviei as a probable record for Québec and provided illustrations for its identification (figs 272–274). Dondale et al. (2003) included a record from Québec on the distribution map, but did not give any details. The details of that record are given here: Réserve faunique des Laurentides, near Rivière Malbaie [47°41’N, 70°51’W] 26.vii.–02.viii.2000, 1ɗ, M. Larrivée (CNC). These records from Québec fill a gap in the transcontinental distribution of the species.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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) | 0.012 | 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".