Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasioseius furcisetus Athias - Henriot, 1959 Lasioseius penicilliger Berlese. — Evans, 1958a: 219. Misidentification of L. furcisetus, according to Walter & Lindquist, 1989: 2810. Lasioseius furcisetus Athias-Henriot, 1959: 180. Lasioseius furcisetus.— Bregetova, 1977a: 179; Karg, 1993: 249 Gwiazdowicz, 2007: 81; Moraza & Lindquist, 2011: 22. Lasioseius (Crinidens) furcisetus.— Karg, 1980: 349; Farrier & Hennessey, 1993: 36; Christian & Karg, 2006: 164. Lasioseius lanciolatus Chant, 1963: 282 (Synonymy by Walter & Lindquist, 1989: 2810). Lasioseius (Criniacus) lanciolatus.— Karg, 1980: 365; Farrier & Hennessey, 1993: 36. Lasioseius (Cuspiacus) lanciolatus.— Christian & Karg, 2006: 229. TYPE DEPOSITORY: of L. furcisetus: Laboratoire d’Acarologie, l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, France; of L. lanciolatus: Canadian National Collection, Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; accession number 7277. TYPE LOCALITY AND HABITAT: of L. furcisetus: Bainem, Algeria, on bark of Pinus halepensis (Plantae: Pinaceae); of L. lanciolatus: Davis, California, USA, on a grape (Plantae: Vitaceae) bud in a greenhouse. NOTES: (a) Lindquist (1964a: 330; 1964b: 3895) and Farrier & Hennessey (1993: 38) considered L. lanciolatus to be a junior synonym of L. penicilliger. In this publication we have adopted the interpretation of Walter & Lindquist (1989: 2810), considering them to be distinct species; (b) Bregetova (1977a: 179) suspected that the specimens reported as Lasioseius (Lasioseius) ometisimilis Hirschmann by Westerboer (1963: 260) were actually L. furcisetus.
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) | 0.007 | 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".