Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhizoterus vacca Hartig, 1841 Rhizoterus vacca Hartig, 1841: 363. HOLOTYPE: (1244 [3.02]). Forda formicaria von Heyden, 1837 (senior synonym— Kaltenbach, 1843: 209). Valid Specimen. One aptera mounted on a point. A second point on the same pin has a damaged specimen (possibly Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761 see below). Collected from anthills and ants into alcohol by Wilhelm Saxesen in April 1839 from an unknown location. Remarks. There is some uncertainty around the identity of the aphid specimen. The antennae of this species were illustrated in Hartig (1841, Fig. 13) and therein depicted in a manner consistent with the current use of the name Forda formicaria von Heyden, 1837 in that they are five segmented with the third segment similar in length to the fourth and fifth combined. However, high resolution photographs of specimen 1244 show what appears to be six-segmented antennae with antennal segment III of similar length to IV. Given the contradictory information, the identity of the specimen remains uncertain. If not F. formicaria it may be that the specimen instead represents a species in the genus Paracletus von Heyden, 1837 which have six segmented antennae but otherwise resemble F. formicaria. Confirmation of the synonymy is needed. Hartig’s notes indicate that the genus was believed to be Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835 [= Prociphilus Koch, 1857], and are consistent with Hartig’s (1841) description which indicates that the specimen was collected together with F. rufa by Saxesen and resembled Rhizobius pini Burmeister, 1835.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".