Bibliographic record
Abstract
TINKERBELLA Huber & Noyes, 2013 (Figs 335–339) Tinkerbella Huber & Noyes, 2013: 19. Type species: Tinkerbella nana Huber & Noyes, 2013, by original designation. Diagnosis. Funicle 5-segmented, clava 1-segmented (Fig. 336); mandible with 4 teeth (Fig. 335a); fore wing with venation 0.7 × wing length (Fig. 337); hind wing without fringe seta along anterior margin (Fig. 337); tarsi 4- segmented. Remarks. Tinkerbella belongs to the Arescon group of genera. Tinkerbella is distinguished from the other genera of the group by the following combination: funicle 5-segmented and tarsi 4-segmented; the remaining genera either have the tarsi 5-segmented or, in Kikiki, funicle 4-segmented and tarsi 3-segmented. Tinkerbella is closest to Arescon but differs in its minute size, striated inner surface of scape (Fig. 336), different shape of both wings and absence of setae along most of anterior margin of hind wing, and extremely narrow metanotum without differentiated dorsellum (Figs 338, 339a). Neotropical hosts. Unknown. Important reference. Huber & Noyes (2013).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.027 | 0.009 |
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".