Bibliographic record
Abstract
4. Abagrotis brunneipennis (Grote) (Figs. 33–34, Map 22) Identification: Forewing length 14.0–17.0 mm. Abagrotis brunneipennis is similar to A. cupida (Grote) and the two frequently are confused in collections. Forewing ground color is dark reddish brown in A. brunneipennis and pale reddish brown to grayish brown in A. cupida. The overall forewing pattern is faint to virtually absent in A. brunneipennis; the pattern in A. cupida is more distinct. Orbicular and reniform spots are only slightly darker and faint in A. brunneipennis and are slightly to much darker in A. cupida. The cluster of black scales at the apex of the subterminal line on the costa is faint or absent in A. brunneipennis but prominent in most specimens of A. cupida. Hindwing is dark gray in A. brunneipennis and gray to dark gray in A. cupida. The overall look of A. brunneipennis has a shiny greasy sheen to the wings; in A. cupida the wings are dull. Flight period: June to July. Collected localities: Tennessee: Cocke Co., Foothills Parkway south overlook. (2 specimens) Elevation range: 1860 ft. (567 m) General distribution: This species is widely distributed, but is most common in northeastern North America. It has been found from Newfoundland south to North Carolina, west through Pennsylvania and Michigan to North Dakota. There are scattered records in Manitoba, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon (Lafontaine 1998). Larval hosts: Blueberry (Vaccinium sp., Ericaceae). MAP 22. Collecting localities of Abagrotis brunneipennis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".