Nothochrysa californica Banks 1892
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NOTHOCHRYSA CALIFORNICA Banks, 1892 Nothochrysa californica Banks, 1892: 373. Type: USA: S. California (corrected by Banks 1903: 142); original designation; male, Los Angeles CA, MCZ (Penny et al. 1997). SYNONYMY PERTAINING TO CANADA Nothochrysa californica: Smith 1932: 582, 601; Spencer 1942: 26; Bickley and MacLeod 1956: 183; Adams 1967: 223– 225; Garland 1982 [1984]: 265–267, 410, Figs. 74, 128–132, Map 24; 1984: 94; 1985a: 737–751; Scudder 1994: 45; Penny et al. 1997: 44. CANADA: T = 9 (5♂, 4♀). FIRST RECORD: BC: 1♂, Sidney, 11.iv.1927 (W. Downes) [SEM]. FLIGHT PERIOD: April 11 (1927; Sidney BC)–June 5 (1955; Bowser BC). BC: T = 9 (5♂, 4♀). FIRST RECORD: 1♂, Sidney, 11.iv.1927 (W. Downes) [SEM]. FLIGHT PERIOD: April 11 (1927; Sidney)– June 5 (1955; Bowser). LOCALITIES: Bowser [49°26'N 124°40'W; CNC]. Sidney [48°39'N 123°24'W; SEM]. S[outh] Pender Is [land] [48°45'N 123°13'W; CNC]. Vancouver, Seymour Mountain, 4700 ft [1433 m] [Mount Seymour Provincial Park, 49°23'30"N 122°55'00"W; SEM]. Victoria [48°26'N 123°22'W; SEM]. Nothochrysa californica occurs in Canada, in southern coastal British Columbia. Canadian localities in literature for which no specimen has been seen, are: Nanaimo BC (Spencer 1942). Smith (1932: 582), in his study of Chrysopidae in the Canadian National Collection, reported that, “Only a single specimen of this handsome species has been seen from Canada. It was collected by W.B. Anderson, Victoria, B.C., May 4, 1918. The specimen was badly damaged by museum pests and has been mounted on a slide (Fig. 5). It was compared with Banks’ type in the Museum of Comparative Zoology.” Although this particular specimen could not be located 226, Victoria BC has been authenticated by other museum specimens [SEM]. All specimens reported here are documented with data in Garland (1982 [1984]). Based on label data, adults have been found on snow, and associated with D[ouglas] Fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii]. This is one of five species of Chrysopidae that have been designated as potentially rare and endangered in British Columbia (Scudder 1994). For the biology and immature stages of this species in California, see Toschi (1965).
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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
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".