Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subfamily * Homotominae Heslop-Harrison, 1958, stat. rev. Comments The subfamily and its constituent tribes and subtribes were diagnosed by Hollis & Broomfield (1989) (treated as family, subfamilies and tribes) who also analysed the generic relationships of the family using morphological evidence; the three subfamilies (here tribes) were represented in a trifurcation in their cladogram. The molecular analyses, in which only three genera were included, reflect this morphological tree but sampled only two subfamilies (here tribes). Following Ouvrard (2002), the classification of Burckhardt & Ouvrard (2012) differs from that of Hollis & Broomfield (1989) in the inclusion of Phytolyma Scott, 1882 in the Macrohomotominae White & Hodkinson, 1985 (Phytolymini) rather than in the Aphalarinae. The classification presented here reflects that of Burckhardt & Ouvrard (2012) though with reduced ranks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".