Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liriomyza baptisiae (Frost) Material examined. CALIFORNIA: Napa / Lake Co., McLaughlin Reserve, 3.vii.2015, em. vii.2015, E. LoPresti, ex Thermopsis macrophylla, #CSE1901, CNC564613 (1♀). Hosts. Fabaceae: Baptisia tinctoria (L.) R. Br., Lupinus argenteus Pursh ssp. argenteus var. laxiflorus (Douglas ex Lindl.) Dorn, L. latifolius Lindl. ex J. Agardh, L. pratensis A. Heller, Thermopsis * macrophylla Hook. & Arn., T. rhombifolia (Nutt. ex Pursh) Nutt. ex Richardson (Spencer 1969, 1981; Lonsdale 2017). We have found similar leaf mines on Baptisia alba (L.) Vent. Leaf mine. Upper surface linear-blotch, greenish when fresh; frass in grains and strips along the sides of the linear portion, irregularly deposited in the blotch. In the mines we examined on Thermopsis, the blotch sometimes obliterated the linear portion, and sometimes much of the linear portion was on the lower surface. Puparium. Yellowish; formed outside the mine. Distribution. USA: AK, CA, CO, MT, PA, WA; Canada: AB, BC, MB, SK. The record of MO (Lonsdale 2017) is erroneous; MT was intended. We have found probable mines of Liriomyza baptisiae on Baptisia spp. in IA, MA, and WI. Comments. Liriomyza baptisiae is the only Nearctic agromyzid known to feed on Thermopsis, now having been reared from this host in Alberta and California. On Thermopsis in Colorado we have found similar linearblotch mines produced by solitary larvae, as well as a single example of a puffy primary blotch mine, ultimately occupying nearly the entire leaflet, produced by five larvae feeding together. The latter mine had fine, granular frass scattered throughout. The puparia were yellow as with L. baptisiae, suggesting another Liriomyza species, but we were unable to rear adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".