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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".