Chaetocladius (Chaetocladius) ligni Cranston et Oliver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chaetocladius (Chaetocladius) ligni Cranston et Oliver Figs 11A–E Diagnosis. Labrum as in Fig. 11A, SI seta simple; premandible (Fig. 11B) with one apical and one inner tooth, and weak brush; antenna (Fig. 11C) 5-segmented, with 3 rd segment subequal to 4 th, large LO, AR 1.2; mandible (Fig. 11D) with 4 inner teeth; mentum (Fig. 11E) with broad bifid median tooth, 4 lateral teeth (5 th vestigial or absent), with pale vertical “grooves”; VM plates small originating from 1 st lateral tooth; (abdomen missing). Notes. The species is not typical in having a simple SI (usually serrated or divided), single apical tooth (usually two) on premandible and an overhanging abdominal segment 9, with the procerci directed posteriorly (Cranston & Oliver 1988). Ecology and habitat. As xylophagous species, larvae are wood miners (Cranston & Oliver 1988, Saether 1983). Unlike Orthocladius (S.) lignicola larvae that were often encountered when sorting through the samples, larvae of this species were only found by detailed examinations of woody debris. Generally Chaetocladius species have a temperature preference of 6.6–9.3°C (Rossaro 1991). Sampling sites. Killarney and Arrowhead Provincial Parks and Muskoka District Nearctic distribution. First published record for Canada: Ontario. USA: Oregon, North and South Carolina.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".