Bibliographic record
Abstract
Illidops sophrosine (Nixon, 1976) Table 6 Apanteles sophrosine Nixon, 1976: 713, fig. 9. Species concept Our species concept is based mostly on the information available in Nixon (1976), which was reiterated in following publications by Papp (1981), Tobias & Kotenko (1986), and Kotenko (2007). → *. Ecology / host information Host unknown. Distribution PAL: Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Russia (ZAB, PRI). Molecular data We observed specimens of two barcoding clusters which morphologically resemble I. sophrosine (also see Table 6 and Figs 41–43): BOLD:ADU8837 and BOLD:AEO8202. However, these clusters are far apart from each other with minimum p-distances of 6.0%. The clusters are clearly separated, also taking into account the within-BIN maximum p-distances of 0.8% (BOLD:ADU8837) and 0.16% (BOLD:AEO8202). The Nearest Neighbors (NN) in the BOLD database are different clusters, found in different biogeographic regions and not identified to species level. Only BOLD:ADU8837 is quite close to its NN BOLD:AEI2994 with a minimum p-distance of 1.77%; however we were unable to observe any specimens of the NN BIN – and the morphology is quite cryptic in any case, so we cannot draw any conclusions based on morphology at this point. It is currently impossible to match any of these BINs unambiguously to the name I. sophrosine and there may be more barcoding clusters and cryptic morphology in the future, which is why we prefer to keep the clusters as I. cf. sophrosine for now. Remarks Holotype female, NHMUK. Country of type locality: Italy. The type was examined by Fernandez-Triana et al. (2020). This species is morphologically similar to the I. naso complex. According to Nixon (1976), I. sophrosine can be distinguished from A. contortus (jun. syn. of I. naso), A. evander (jun.syn. of I. naso) and I. cloelia based on the following characters: “Eyes large; in lateral view of head fully twice as wide as width of head behind them; head from above markedly wider than mesoscutum” (Nixon 1976: 709). We found the character regarding the width of the eyes rather difficult to observe depending on specimen orientation, but it seems to be relatively consistent among our barcoding clusters (compare Fig. 41). The two barcoding clusters we consider to be associated with I. sophrosine can currently not be clearly distinguished by morphology.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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".