Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calodera parviceps (Casey, 1893) Nasirema parviceps Casey, 1893: 309. Amarochara parviceps; as synonym of A. umbrosa: Bernhauer and Scheerpeltz (1926). Calodera parviceps: Assing (2002). Type material examined. See Assing (2002) Additional material examined. Canada: New Brunswick: 1 ex., Kouchibouguac National Park, 5.VII.1977, leg. Vockeroth (CNC); 1 ex., same data, but 18.VI.1977 (CNC); 1 ex., same data, but 30.VI.1977 (CNC); 1 ex., same data, but 26.VI.1977 (CNC); 1 ex., same data, but 18.IX.1977, leg. Campbell (CNC); 9 exs., same data, but 15.IX.1977, leg. Campbell, Miller, Smetana (CNC, cAss); 1 ex., same data, but 21.IX.1977, leg. Smetana (CNC). Ontario: 1♀, Carp, 20.X.1954, leg. Becker (CNC); 1♀, Lanark Co., Mississippi Lake, 22.X.1967, leg. Smetana (CNC); 2♀♀, 22 mi. N Hurkett, Black Sturgeon Lake, 26.VI.1973, leg. Parry & Campbell (CNC); 1♀, Montreal River Harbour, 7.VI.1973, leg. Campbell & Parry (CNC); 12 ♀♀, Ottawa, Shirleys Bay, 2.V.1979, leg. Smetana (CNC, cAss); 2♀♀, Leeds & Greenv. Co., 2 km SE Spencerville, 30.IV.1979, leg. Smetana (CNC, cAss). Nova Scotia: 2 exs., Cape Breton Highlands N. P., Warren Lake trail, 12 m, alder litter and moss, 26.IX.1984, leg. Campbell & Davies (CNC); 1 ex., Cape Breton Highlands N. P., near Benjies Lake, 17.VI.1984, leg. Smetana (cAss). Redescription. In external characters (Fig. 1) such as size, habitus, punctation, microsculpture resembling the European C. rufescens Kraatz, 1856. Body length 2.8-3.5 mm. Coloration highly variable: head blackish-brown to black; pronotum and elytra rufous to black; abdomen uniformly blackish or bicoloured with segments III-V and apex reddish to brown; legs and antennae reddish to blackish, usually with the basal 2-3 antennomeres somewhat paler. Head approximately as long as wide, with a posterior constriction of about 0.6 times the width of head (Fig. 2); eyes approximately as long as postocular region in dorsal view; punctation fine and of variable density; integument with or without shallow microsculpture; antenna as in Fig. 3. Pronotum approximately as wide as long and approximately 1.15 times as wide as head (Fig. 2); punctation fine and dense, but density subject to pronounced variation; dorsal surface with or without shallow microsculpture. Elytra approximately 1.4 times as wide as pronotum and at suture slightly shorter than pronotum, with or without microsculpture (Fig. 2); punctation finer than that of pronotum. Hind wings fully developed. Abdomen approximately as wide as elytra; tergites III-VI with pronounced and coarsely punctate anterior impression; remainder of tergal surfaces with fine and dense punctation (Fig. 4); integument with or without microsculpture. Male: sternite VIII with posterior margin obtusely angled in the middle (Fig. 5); median lobe of aedeagus as in Figs 6-9. Female: sternite VIII weakly convex posteriorly; spermatheca as in Fig. 10. Intraspecific variation. Like C. rufescens, C. parviceps is subject to pronounced intraspecific variability, especially of coloration, microsculpture, and punctation. Comparative notes. Calodera parviceps is distinguished from C. rufescens by the shape of the apical internal structures of the aedeagus, which are somewhat spoonshaped and apically crossed in C. rufescens. For illustrations of the genitalia of C. rufescens see Assing (1996). For characters separating C. parviceps from other North American representatives of the genus see the key below. Comment. Unfortunately, the single syntype in the Casey collection is a female (Assing 2002). Th erefore, the identification of the additional material listed above, which is based on external characters, must be regarded as somewhat tentative. Males from Rhode Island would be required to verify the specific identity of the Canadian material. Distribution and bionomics. At present, the species is known from several localities in eastern Canada and from Rhode Island (Map 1). As can be inferred from the labels attached to the above specimens and from the ecological preferences of closely related congeners, C. parviceps is probably an inhabitant of the litter layer of moist habitats. Th e examined specimens were collected during the period from April through July, with the majority of records in June, and in autumn (September, October),
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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; 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".