Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) paululum (Sandhouse, 1924) Halictus (Chloralictus) paululus Sandhouse, 1924: 23 (holotype, ♂, deposited in USNM, type no. 26419, USNMENT01570300, examined). Lasioglossum (Chloralictus) paululum – Michener 1951: 1116 (catalogue). Dialictus paululus – Hurd 1979: 1969 (catalogue). — Moure & Hurd 1987: 120 (catalogue). Lasioglossum (Dialictus) paululum – Scott et al. 2011: 30 (checklist). Diagnosis See the diagnosis for the L. stictaspis species complex. Lasioglossum paululum is a member of this group and reliable, unique diagnostic characters are not yet known. Female specimens determined as L. stictaspis from Colorado, which may correspond to L. paululum, frequently have the mesoscutum and mesepisternum shiny, T3 with very dense and complete subapical band of tomentum, ocellocular area shiny with distinctly separated punctures (IS ≤1 PD), and all pubescence bright white, in contrast with specimens from New Mexico which usually have the mesoscutum and mesepisternum dull, T3 with subapical band of tomentum slightly sparser and narrowly interrupted medially, ocellocular area dull with crowded punctures (IS = 0 PD), and pubescence yellowish dorsally. However, the dull New Mexico forms can occur as far north as Alberta, and the shiny Colorado forms can occur west to Arizona, with any combination of these characters possible in between. The males are even more difficult to separate, but male L. paululum may have a slightly longer face. Sandhouse (1924) described the face as relatively long, although the holotype length/width ratio is only 0.84. Comments Lasioglossum paululum may be a junior synonym of L. stictaspis, but a more detailed revision of the L. stictaspis species complex is needed. If L. paululum proves to be distinct, then at least some of the L. stictaspis specimens recorded from Canada in Gardner & Gibbs (2022) are probably this species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".