Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chermes laricis Hartig, 1839 Chermes laricis Hartig, 1839: 644. SYNTYPES: 10 (field no. missing [3.16, 3.17]), Larix. Adelges laricis (Hartig, 1839) (change of combination— Schouteden, 1900: 138). Adelges laricis Vallot, 1836 (senior secondary homonym and synonym— Börner & Schilder, 1932: 688, “ A. laricis Vallot, Hartig ”; Börner, 1952: 207, “ Chermes laricis Htg. 1837, 1841 part.”). Valid Sacchiphantes viridis (Ratzeburg, 1843) (junior synonym—Börner, 1952: 208, “ Ch. Laricis Htg. 1841 part.”). Specimens. Seven alatae and three apterous progredientes mounted in situ on four and three larch needles, respectively, all on two pins. There are no labels corresponding to Hartig’s notes accompanying the specimens so their collection information cannot be determined. Remarks. Hartig (1839) also described material under the name “ Coccus laricis B[ouché]” but no specimens are labelled as such in his collection. Börner & Schilder (1932) recognized Chermes laricis Hartig, 1839 as a homonym of Adelges laricis Vallot, 1836. However, later Börner (1952) treated it in part with Sacchiphantes viridis [= Adelges viridis] (Ratzeburg, 1843), but never provided a justification for this. Investigation of the potential synonymy with A. viridis and confirmation of the synonymy with A. laricis are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".