Crematogaster subnuda subsp. discinodis Emery 1893
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crematogaster subnuda discinodis Emery, 1893 Material examined. Kranji Road, 1.42638, 103.75413, 7 Sep 2016, G.W. Yong leg., ZRC _ HYM_0001766; Labrador Hill, 9 May 1985, D.H. Murphy leg., ZRC _HYM_0000704; Pulau Semakau, Apr-Oct 2012, J. Puniamoorthy et al. leg., mangroves, malaise trap, ZRC _BDP (multiple); Pulau Ubin, Apr-Oct 2012, J. Puniamoorthy et al. leg., mangroves, malaise trap, ZRC _BDP (multiple); Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, Apr-Oct 2012, J. Puniamoorthy et al. leg., malaise trap, ZRC _BDP (multiple); University Hall (NUS), 1.29711, 103.77658, M.S. Foo & W. Wang leg., malaise trap, ZRC _BDP (multiple). Material not physically examined. Syntype – CASENT0904488, ANTC24399 (MSNG). Literature. Type – Emery (1893) [as Crematogaster discinodis]. Wang et al. (2018a). Localities. Kranji Road; Labrador Hill; Pulau Semakau; Pulau Ubin; Sungei Buloh; University Hall (NUS). Habitat/Ecology. This species was often found in both mature and young secondary forests in Singapore, including waste woodland secondary forest, frequently fragments in semi-urban or urban settings; nests have been found in fallen twigs. Individuals have also been collected in fairly large numbers from mangroves using malaise traps. Remarks. Type locality in Singapore. Crematogaster subnuda discinodis appears similar to C. subnuda Mayr, 1879, but can be distinguished by its largely smooth and shiny integument, and overall lighter body colours, relative to the more rugulose and darker body of the C. subnuda type. However, Emery (1900) observed that samples of C. subnuda collected from parts of Indonesia could vary widely in terms of head and mesosomal sculpture, and also body colour. It is not stated if this variation occurred between or within different colony samples. If extreme variation does occur between intranidal workers, it would support the synonymy of subspecies discinodis under C. subnuda. At the time of writing, we do not have adequate material (i.e., colony series of C. subnuda from a broader geographic range) necessary for evaluation. Thus, at this point we refrain from making any unjustified taxonomic changes to the current subspecies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".