On the distribution of Dolichopus humilis Van Duzee in the Palaearctic Region and a new synonym (Diptera: Dolichopodidae: Dolichopus latipennis species group)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dolichopus humilis Van Duzee, 1921 was described from the Alaska-Yukon Territory boundary (Van Duzee et al. 1921), and later recorded from Alaska, Northwest Territories and Greenland (J.R. Vockeroth in Pollet et al. 2004). This species was redescribed and illustrated by Pollet and Böcher (2005). It was never associated with the Dolichopus latipennis species group (= Hygroceleuthus Loew, 1857). Recently Negrobov et al. (2009) reviewed the Dolichopus latipennis species group in the Palaearctic Region and described D. lantsovi Negrobov, Grichanov et Barkalov from the Taimyr and Yamal peninsulas of Siberia. At the time of description the differences in leg setation and coloration between D. lantsovi and D. humilis were considered to be important to distinguish a new species. Recently the junior author examined a long series of D. humilis from Thule (northwest side of the island of Greenland) found in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark (ZMUC). IYG also recently examined new material of D. lantsovi from the arctic region of Eurasia deposited in the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg (ZIN). Study of this material has revealed variability in leg setation, coloration and thickness (see below) among the Siberian D. lantsovi and northern American D. humilis specimens that overlaps the two species concepts. Therefore, we do not see any justification in recognizing two separate species.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".