Ceratina (Zadontomerus) dupla Say 1837
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ceratina (Zadontomerus) dupla Say 1837 County records: Allegan, Barry, Bay, Berrien, Calhoun, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Huron, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lake, Lapeer, Leelanau, Lenawee, Livingston, Mecosta, Newaygo, Ottawa, Saginaw, Van Buren, Washtenaw. Notes. Daly (1973) revised the Ceratina of America north of Mexico, which included examination of Michigan material. Due to problems with female identification, no doubt confounded by the presence of the then unknown C. mikmaqi Rehan & Sheffield, only males were identified in Daly’s revision. Specimens identified as C. dupla at MSUC were reexamined by JG. Of the 104 males identified by Daly as C. dupla only 12 were in fact that species. The remaining specimens were C. mikmaqi. Although most historical records of Ceratina dupla were misidentified, the species as currently definied is confirmed for 20 counties in the Lower Peninsula (see checklist entry below). Nesting in Ontario described by Vickruck et al. (2011).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 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".