Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chrysoperla rufilabris (Burmeister, 1839): Garland 1984: 93. SYNONYMY PERTAINING TO CANADA Chrysopa rufilabris: Gibson 1913: 137; 1915: 149; Putman 1932a: 44–45; 1932b: 121–126; Ross 1932: 40–43; Smith 1932: 597; Ross and Putman 1934: 37; Putman 1937: 29–37; Garlick 1955: 281–282, 326–328; Putman 1955: 24; Bickley and MacLeod 1956: 194; Putman 1956: 520; Putman and Herne 1958: 668, 670–671; 1960: 200; Dustan 1961: 224; Putman 1963a: 37; Herne and Putman 1966: 937, 939; Putman and Herne 1966: 811–812; Throne 1971: 74; Tauber 1974: 1149–1150; New 1975: 129; Hydorn and Whitcomb 1979: 293. Chrysoperla rufilabris: Garland 1982 [1984]: 200–205, 373–374, 417, Figs. 79–82, 98, Map 16; 1984: 93; 1985a: 737– 751; 756–757; Brooks 1994: 172–173, Fig. 277; Penny et al. 1997: 52–53. CANADA: T = 41 (17♂, 21♀, 3?). FIRST RECORD: ON: 1♀, Toronto, 14.vii.1914 (E.M. Walker) [ROM]. FLIGHT PERIOD: June 9 (1965; Rondeau Provincial Park ON)–September 16 (1931; Biscotasing ON). MB: T = 1 (?). FIRST RECORD: 1? [abdomen with terminalia missing], Oak Lake, (W67-2554, Rec[eived] 28.vii [1967]) / (Bur Oak, W67-2554) [NFRC]. NEW RECORDS: 1? [abdomen with terminalia missing], Oak Lake, (W67-2554, Rec[eived] 28.vii [1967] [collector unknown]) / (Bur Oak, W67-2554) [NFRC]. FLIGHT PERIOD: July 28 (1967; Oak Lake). LOCALITIES: Oak Lake [49°45'59"N 100°37'41"W; NFRC]. NS: T = 2 (♂). FIRST RECORD: 1♂, Sable Island, Main Station, 22.vii.1976 (B. Wright) [NSM]. FLIGHT PERIOD: July 22 (1976; Sable Island)–August 11–14 (1978; Sable Island). LOCALITIES: Sable Island 188, Main Station / Sable Island, Met[eorological] Station [43°57'N 59°55'W; NSM]. ON: T = 35 (13♂, 20♀, 2?). FIRST RECORD: 1♀, Toronto, 14.vii.1914 (E.M. Walker) / (Chrysopa rufilabris Burm., Det. P. Adams ‘61) [ROM]. NEW RECORDS: 1♂, 1♀, Hamilton / 18082H30, 109a 7, 20.vii.[19]30 / Host: European Pine Shoot Moth, Rhyaciona [sic] buoliana (Schiff.) [collector unknown; CNC]. FLIGHT PERIOD: June 9 (1965; Rondeau Provincial Park)–September 16 (1931; Biscotasing). LOCALITIES: Biscotasing [47°17'N 82°06'W; CNC]. Chatham [42°24'N 82°11'W; UWO]. Guelph [43°33'N 80°15'W; UG]. Hamilton [43°14'N 79°57'W; CNC]. Harrow [42°02'N 82°55'W; MCMU, UG]. L[ake] Opeongo, Algonquin P [ar]k [45°42'N 78°23'W; MCMU]. Ottawa [45°16'N 75°45'W; CNC]. P[oin]t Pelee / P[oin]t Pelee Nat [iona]l P[ar]k [Point Pelee National Park of Canada, 41°58'N 82°31'W; CNC, LEM]. Port Credit [43°33'N 79°35'W; ROM]. Rondeau Prov [incial] P[ar]k, Kent Co [unty] [42°17'N 81°52'W; ROM]. S[ain]t Davids [43°10'N 79°07'W; UG]. Southampton 189 [44°29'N 81°23'W; CNC]. Toronto [43°42'N 79°25'W; MCZ, ROM]. Vineland [43°09'N 79°24'W; CNC]. QC: T = 3 (2♂, 1♀). FIRST RECORD: 1♂ 190, Laval, 1.ix.1967 (M.O. Guibord) [LEM]. FLIGHT PERIOD: September 1 (1967; Laval)–September 8 (1978; Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue). LOCALITIES: Laval [45°35'N 73°45'W; LEM]. Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue [45°24'11"N 73°56'58"W; LEM]. Chrysoperla rufilabris occurs in Canada, mainly Ontario and Quebec. A literature report of New Brunswick in Penny et al. (1997), was based on an error for “ New Brunswick, New Jersey” in Banks (1903: 152); Banks (op. cit.) did not report any Canadian localities for this species. Sable Island NS is the only authenticated locality in Atlantic Canada. Canadian localities in literature for which no specimen has been seen, are: Grimsby ON and Niagara ON (Putman 1932b), and there are no voucher specimens for any of the biological studies in the Niagara Peninsula (Ross 1932; Ross and Putman 1934; Putman 1955, 1956; Putman and Herne 1958; Putman 1963a; Putman and Herne 1966). All specimens reported here are documented with data in Garland (1982 [1984]), or as new records (above). Based on label data, adults have been taken at light, and associated with Bur Oak, Robinia and White Pine trees. Also from label data, adults have been reared from larvae feeding on the European Pine Shoot Moth, Rhyacionia buoliana (Denis and Schiffermüller). Bionomic notes on this species in literature pertaining to Canada have been summarised (Garland 1985a). In Michigan, this insect has recently been evaluated for control of the balsam twig aphid, Mindarus abietinus Koch, both in laboratory and field studies in Christmas Tree (Abies balsamea and A. fraseri) plantations (Fondren et al. 2004).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".