Bibliographic record
Abstract
33. Amblyomma dissimile Koch, 1844a. Nearctic: 1) Mexico (north), 2) USA; Neotropical: 1) Antigua and Barbuda, 2) Argentina, 3) Bahamas, 4) Barbados, 5) Belize, 6) Brazil, 7) Colombia, 8) Costa Rica, 9) Cuba, 10) Curaç ã o, 11) Dominican Republic, 12) Ecuador, 13) French Guiana, 14) Grenada, 15) Guadeloupe, 16) Guatemala, 17) Guyana, 18) Haiti, 19) Honduras, 20) Jamaica, 21) Mexico (south), 22) Nicaragua, 23) Panama, 24) Paraguay, 25) Peru, 26) Puerto Rico, 27) Saint Lucia, 28) Suriname, 29) Trinidad and Tobago, 30) Venezuela (Bequaert 1932 a, Cooley & Kohls 1944, Fairchild et al. 1966, Morel 1967, Kohls 1969c, Keirans 1985b, Keirans & Durden 1998, Rainwater et al. 2001, Alvarez et al. 2005, Durden & Knapp 2005, Guglielmone & Nava 2006, Clavijo et al. 2009, GuzmánCornejo et al. 2011, Charruau et al. 2016, Binetruy et al. 2019, Acevedo-Gutiérrez et al. 2020, Mendoza-Roldán et al. 2020, Guglielmone et al. 2021, Polo et al. 2021, Romero et al. 2021). The morphological diagnosis of Amblyomma dissimile can be difficult, and this tick has been confused with several other species of Amblyomma, especially Amblyomma rotundatum, while some authors, such Camicas et al. (1998), have not recognized Amblyomma dissimile as a valid name (Guglielmone et al. 2021). Guglielmone & Nava (2014) listed 11 synonyms of Amblyomma dissimile, one of which, Amblyomma trinitatis, is treated as valid in Camicas et al. (1998). Neumann (1911a) erroneously considered Amblyomma dissimile a synonym of Amblyomma cooperi, which in fact is a synonym of Amblyomma dubitatum. Capriles & Gaud (1977) stated that Amblyomma dissimile appears to be extinct in Puerto Rico. Keirans (1985b) noted that records of this tick from India in the Nuttall Collection are incorrect, and the same can be said for records of Amblyomma dissimile from the Philippines in Neumann (1899, 1911a). Scott & Durden (2015) allegedly found a nymph of Amblyomma dissimile on a bird in Canada, but this diagnosis is treated as doubtful in Guglielmone et al. (2020, 2021).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".