Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lepturginus Gilmour, 1959 (Figs. 35, 64–65) Lepturginus Gilmour, 1959a: 334. Type-species — Lepturginus obscurellus Gilmour, 1959 (original designation). Diagnosis. From the original description: “Small, elongate, subovate… Antennae elongate and slender, nearly twice as long as the body… third segment shorter than scape… Pronotum transverse, almost parallel-sided, bearing on each side at about the basal quarter a small, slender, almost porrect, acute spine… Elytra elongate subovate; apices obliquely-truncate, sutural angle rounded, marginal about rectangular; disc smooth, feebly depressed premedially. Prosternal process fairly narrow, about a quarter the breadth of a procoxal cavity… mesosternal process narrow, narrowing to the apex, narrower than the prosternal, narrowly rounded apically…” Number of species currently included: 2 (both from Mexico and Central America). Remarks. Unfortunately, Gilmour (1959a) did not inform if the row of punctures on transverse basal sulcus of the pronotum continues or not laterally behind the lateral tubercles of the prothorax. However, as he knew very well the difference between Lepturges and Urgleptes (see Gilmour 1959d), probably the punctures do not follow toward sides of the prothorax. If the punctures follow toward sides of the prothorax, Lepturginus will be a junior synonym of Urgleptes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".