MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986365657 · doi:10.3897/zookeys.104.1272

Two new species of Pterostichus Bonelli subgenus Pseudoferonina Ball (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Pterostichini) from the mountains of central Idaho, U.S.A.

2011· article· en· W1986365657 on OpenAlexaff
David Kavanaugh, James Bergdahl

Bibliographic record

VenueZooKeys · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Parks and Wilderness Society
FundersUniversity of Washington
KeywordsSubgenusAedeagusGeographyEcologyType localityForestryBiologyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two new species of Pterostichus Bonelli subgenus Pseudoferonina Ball, are described from the mountains of central Idaho: Pterostichus bousqueti Bergdahl [type locality = small tributaries of South Fork of Payette River watershed, ca. 1170 m (3840 ft), 44.0675°; -115.6822°, near Lowman, Salmon River Mountains, Boise County, Idaho, U.S.A.] and Pterostichus lolo Bergdahl [type locality = Cottonwood/Orogrande Creek, ca. 870 m (2850 ft), 46.5528°; -115.5522°, North Fork of Clearwater River watershed, Clearwater Mountains, near Bungalow, Clearwater County, Idaho, U.S.A.]. Males of Pterostichus bousqueti and Pterostichus lolo are easily distinguished from each other and the seven previously described Pseudoferonina species by the form of the median lobe of the aedeagus, and from most individuals of the other species of Pseudoferonina in Idaho by features of pronotal shape and macrosculpture. Both species appear to be obligate ripicolous hygrophiles, restricted in distribution primarily to the margins of small montane streams in forested areas. Widespread intensive stream surveys for Pseudoferonina over many years indicate the geographic ranges of both species are highly localized, and additional undescribed species may occur in Idaho.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZooKeysSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207