Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genus Charippus Thorell, 1895 Charippus Thorell, 1895: 351; Simon, 1901: 440; Prószyński, 1984: 17; Wanless, 1988: 162, figs 40A–H; Murphy & Murphy, 2000: 271; Prószyński, 2017: 83, fig. 37K; Wang & Li, 2020: 45, figs 1A–D, 2A–G. Type species: Charippus errans Thorell, 1895, by original designation and monotypy. Diagnosis. Charippus resembles Cytaea Keyserling, 1882 in genitalic structures such as the wide embolic spiral and the highly coiled copulatory ducts, but it can be distinguished by: (1) the presence of dense pits on the carapace (Fig. 11); (2) the presence of two centre-parted setal bands (CPSB, Figs 196, 216) on the cephalon (except for Charippus minotaurus sp. nov.); (3) the absence of the crescent-shaped white band at the posterior edge of carapace; (4) the presence of lateral depressions (LD, Fig. 27) near the copulatory openings of epigynum; (5) the edge of lamina of embolic disc (LED) is serrulate in most species (Figs 21, 37, 61). In Cytaea the carapace lacks dense pits and CPSB, and has a crescent-shaped white band on the posterior edge; the epigynum lacks LD; the edge of LED of the male palp is not serrulate (see Zhang & Maddison 2015, figs 545–551). Charippus resembles Laufeia Simon, 1889 in color pattern, body form and the bicuspid retromarginal tooth of chelicera, but it can be distinguished by the large embolic disc along with a long and coiled embolus (Fig. 114), the highly coiled copulatory ducts, and the absence of secondary spermathecae (Fig. 122); vs. the embolus is short and blunt, the copulatory ducts are relatively short and not obviously coiled, and the secondary spermathecae are present in Laufeia (see Ikeda 1998, figs 5–8). Natural history. Specimens of Charippus have been found mainly on tree trunks, but also sometimes on dry sticks or surface of rocks (Figs 1–6). Distribution. China, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".