Andrena (Simandrena) wheeleri Graenicher 1904
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Andrena (Simandrena) wheeleri Graenicher 1904 = Andrena (?Leucandrena) chippewaensis Mitchell, 1960: 212 (New Synonymy; Michigan holotype; Fig. 6D). Holotype. ♀ USA: Michigan: Chippewa Co.: 3 Jun. 1957, R. & K. Dreisbach (NMNH: 75173). County records: Antrim, Baraga, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Dickinson, Gladwin, Keweenaw, Leelanau, Mackinac, Marquette, Wayne. Notes. Andrena chippewaensis was described based on two female specimens. The paratype, deposited at North Carolina State University and collected from New Brunswick, Canada was examined by JSA and determined to be A. wheeleri. Examination of images of the NMNH holotype confirms the synonymy. The basis for separation of A. chippewaensis from A. wheeleri in Mitchell’s (1960) key was the wide gena of the former (see couplet 104), but the holotype of A. chippewaensis does not seem to match Mitchell’s own description in this respect, having a relatively narrow gena. As a result, it should come to A. wheeleri in Mitchell’s key instead. A male specimen of A. wheeleri (MSUC) identified by Mitchell has identical collection information to the holotype of A. chippewaensis. LaBerge (1989) suggests it may be an important pollinator of blueberry, although it has not been collected in Michigan’s major highbush blueberry growing region in the southwest. It is also regularly collected from Rubus. Material examined. Antrim Co.: Glacial Hills, Eckhart, 12 Jun. 2016, Rubus (3 ♀ MSUC: RI, JBWM); Torch Lake, southeast, 12 Jun. 2016, Rubus (1 ♀ 2 ♂ MSUC: RI, JBWM); Chippewa Co.: (no locality) 3 Jun. 1957, R. & K. Dreisbach (1 ♂ MSUC); (no locality), 25 Jun. 1960, R. & K. Dreisbach (1 ♀ MSUC); Dickinson Co.: T43N R29W Sec. 14, 24 Jun. 1983, Rubus allegheniensis, M. Arduser (1 ♀ MSUC); T43N R30W Sec. 18, 4 Jun. 1983, M. Arduser (1 ♀ MSUC); Gladwin Co.: (no locality) 19 Jun. 1943, R.R. Dreisbach (1 ♀ MSUC); Keweenaw Co.: (no locality) 26 Jun. 1955, R.R. Dreisbach (1 ♀ MSUC); Copper Harbor, 18 Jun. 1957, R.W. Hodges (1 ♀ MSUC); Mackinac Co.: (no locality) 7 Jun. 1960, R. & K. Dreisbach (1 ♀ MSUC); T43N R12W Sec. 22,29 May 1965, R.W. Husband (1 ♀ MSUC); Marquette Co.: (no locality) 20 Jun. 1955, R.R. Dreisbach (1 ♀ MSUC).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".