Hypnoidus candezei Fleutiaux 1905
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypnoidus candezei Fleutiaux, 1905 SDI Cryptohypnus indicus Candèze, 1900: 92 (nec indicus Motschulsky, 1858; original description; published type locality: Dalhousie, India). Hypnoidus candezei Fleutiaux, 1905: 326 (replacement name for Cryptohypnus indicus Candèze); Schenkling, 1925: 210 (placed under subgenus Zorochrus, unavailable subgenus name, incorrect subsequent spelling of Zorochros not in prevailing usage- ICZN 1999: Art. 33.3; catalogue; India: “Pendjab”); Dolin & Cate, 2001: 123 (re-examined Type; “Dalhousie”); Cate, 2007: 154 (catalogue; “HP” as India: Himachal Pradesh); Gupta et al., 2018: 501 (catalogue; “2A” as India: Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir); Platia & Sechi, 2022: 380 (checklist; “ India: Punjab”). Hypnoidus indicus (Candèze, 1900): Schwarz, 1906: 153 (catalogue; India: “Pundjap”). Type Locality. India: Dalhousie, Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh. Type Depository. Holotype, F (NHML). Distribution in India. Himachal Pradesh (Chamba District). General Distribution. India. Remark. It appears that Schwarz (1906: 153) was unaware of the replacement name proposed by Fleutiaux (1905: 326) for Cryptohypnus indicus Candèze, which was preoccupied by Cryptohypnus indicus Motschulsky. Historically, Dalhousie was part of Punjab, British India, but it is now located in Himachal Pradesh. As the presence of this species in Jammu & Kashmir requires confirmation, this locality is not included here. The species is considered endemic to India.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".