Megachile (Megachiloides) casadae Cockerell 1898
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Megachile (Megachiloides) casadae Cockerell, 1898 Megachile casadae Cockerell, 1898: 127. Drons 2012: 58. Megachile (Xeromegachile) casadae Cockerell; Mitchell 1934: 302; 1937a: 348; 1944: 136. Butler 1965: 7. Hurd 1979: 2063. Megachile (Megachiloides) casadae Cockerell; Raw 2002: 17. Scott et al. 2011: 55. Sheffield et al. 2011: 54. Megachile austinensis Mitchell, 1927a: 105. Diagnosis. The female of M. casadae can be identified by a shiny and sparsely punctate clypeus medially, 4-toothed mandibles with an asymmetrical emargination between the 3 rd and 4 th teeth that is deepest closer to the 4 th tooth (Fig. 7C), black scopal setae on S6, and T6 with an elevated ridge apicomedially (appears laterally “pinched” in dorsal profile), with dense brown setae along ridge directed medially. The male of M. casadae can be identified by 3-toothed mandibles, wide and spatulate procoxal spines (Fig. 8I), and a slight medial emargination in its otherwise mostly straight clypeal margin (Fig. 10C). Notes. This species is a new state record for Montana. Megachile casadae is most common to the south of Montana (Fig. 1F) and reaches its northernmost extent in Montana, east of the divide, and southern Alberta. Photographs, a full morphological description, and notes on the biology of this species can be found in Sheffield et al. (2011).
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".