Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phaenoglyphis ruficornis (Förster, 1869) Figs 6.18, 7.12 Hemicrisis ruficornis Förster, 1869: 339. Type: deposited in NMW (examined). Phaenoglyphis ruficornis – Evenhuis 1973: 219. — Pujade-Villar & Paretas-Martínez 2006: 479. Hemicrisis ruficornis – Ronquist 1999: 163. Diagnosis Phaenoglyphis ruficornis is mainly characterized by the presence of notauli, with a few wrinkles on their distal side; the presence of scutellar foveae that are horizontally elongated, separated by a carina, and completely open at the bottom (Fig. 7.12); antenna with rhinaria and club shape beginning on F 1 in both males and females, F1 longer than pedicel and F2, and F2–F4 subequal in length in both males and females (Fig. 6.18). It is similar to P. pubicollis and P. evenhuisi because of their sculpturing. However, they can be differentiated because P. ruficornis has a mostly smooth mesoscutum, with a few wrinkles on the distal side of the notauli (Fig. 7.12), while P. pubicollis and P. evenhuisi have distinctive imbricate sculpturing on all surfaces (Fig. 7.8, 7.11). Distribution Holarctic. Certain records: Canada (Menke & Evenhuis 1991: 150), Germany (Förster 1869: 339), USA (Menke & Evenhuis 1991: 150). Uncertain records: Israel (Argaman 1988: 115), Japan (Watanabe 1950: 87).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".