Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aegomorphus quadrigibbus (Say, 1831) (Fig. 14) Acanthocinus quadrigibbus Say, 1831: 9. Remarks. This species was described based on a single specimen from the United States of America. Currently it is known from Canada (Ontario), United States of America (New York, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Mississippi, Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, Tennessee, Connecticut, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Alabama), Mexico (Sinaloa, Vera Cruz, Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco, Yucatán, Nayarit, Quintana Roo), El Salvador, Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Trinidad & Tobago, Venezuela. Monné (2023) and Bezark (2023b) did not list the Marquesas Islands (Duffy 1960), Tahiti (Gilmour 1965), Canada (Wickhan 1897), Belize (Duffy 1960), El Salvador (Franz 1954), Panama (Duffy 1960), Trinidad & Tobago (Duffy 1960), Venezuela (Venezuela), and the Mexican states of Sinaloa (Chemsak & Hovore 2002b), Veracruz (Chemsak & Hovore 2002b), Chiapas (Chemsak & Hovore 2002b), and Nayarit (Hernández-Fuentes et al. 2018). The specimen from Belize examined by us shows some variation in the pubescent pattern, especially on the pronotum (partially with whitish pubescence centrally). However, as reported by Chemsak & Hovore (2002b) this is just one of the variations found in this species: “This highly variable species was found in many collections misidentified as A. circumflexa J. du Val, which it superficially resembles in possessing a pale, arcuate sub-basal fascia in the dorsal pattern.” Material examined. BELIZE, Cayo: Las Cuevas Field Station, 15 km E Caracol, 1 female, 29.VI-3.VII.2019, L.G. Bezark leg. (LGBC).
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".