Paraniglarobia Skoracki 2011, gen. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genus Paraniglarobia gen. nov. Type species: Niglarobia calidridis Bochkov and Mironov, 1998 designated here. Description. FEMALE. Medium-sized syringophilids (total body length 735–795). Gnathosoma. Hypostomal apex smooth, without protuberances. Two pairs of hypostomal lips present. Lateral hypostomal teeth absent. Movable cheliceral digit dentate, with 2 minute teeth. Peritremes M-shaped, with clearly visible chambers in each branch. Stylophore rounded posteriorly. Idiosoma. Dorsal setae of idiosoma serrate. Six pairs of propodonotal setae present, arranged 2–2–2 or 2–1–1–2. Propodonotal shield entire, without pocket-like structures, bearing bases of setae vi, ve, si, se and c1. Hysteronotal shield fused to pygidial shield. Setae d1, d2, e2, f2 and h2 long, setae f1 and h1 short. Genital and pseudanal setal series each consisting of 2 pairs. Aggenital series with 3 pairs of setae. Legs. All legs subequal in thickness. Apodemes I slightly divergent, not fused to apodemes II. Setae vsI and vsII absent. Antaxial and paraxial members of claw pair subequal in size and shape, basal angles present. MALE. Unknown. Differential diagnosis. This genus is morphologically similar to Niglarobia. In females of both genera, leg setae vsII are absent; dorsal setae of the idiosoma d1, d2, e2, f2 and h2 are long and setae f1 and h1 are short; the hypostomal apex is smooth and the stylophore is rounded posteriorly. Paraniglarobia differs from Niglarobia by the following characters: in the females of Paraniglarobia, leg setae vsI are absent and apodemes I are slightly divergent. In females of Niglarobia, leg setae vsI are present and apodemes I are parallel. Etymology. The name Paraniglarobia refers to the closely related genus— Niglarobia. Host range. This genus is assoociated with charadriiform birds of the family Scolopacidae. Habitat. Unknown. Species included. This new genus includes two species placed previously in the genus Niglarobia: P. skorackii (Bochkov and Galloway, 2004) comb. nov. described ex. Tringa melanoleuca (Gmelin) from Canada (Bochkov & Galloway 2004) and P. calidridis (Bochkov and Mironov, 1998) comb. nov. described ex. Calidris minuta from Kazakhstan (Bochkov & Mironov 1998).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".