MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011939042 · doi:10.1139/e04-073

New Dinopanorpidae (Insecta: Mecoptera) from the Eocene Okanagan Highlands (British Columbia, Canada and Washington State, USA)

2005· article· en· W2011939042 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
S. Bruce Archibald

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRostrumGenusPaleontologyPaleogeneGeologyBiologyGeographyZoologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six new species of the extinct family Dinopanorpidae (Mecoptera) are described in the new genus Dinokanaga gen. nov. from five Early (and early Middle?) Eocene Okanagan Highlands localities in British Columbia and Washington State. These are Dinokanaga hillsi sp. nov., D. wilsoni sp. nov., D. dowsonae sp. nov., D. andersoni sp. nov., D. sternbergi sp. nov., and D. webbi sp. nov. The family Dinopanorpidae is previously known only from a hind wing of Dinopanorpa megarche Cockerell, and an undescribed species of Dinopanorpa, both from the Paleogene of Primorye (Maritime Province) in Pacific coastal far-eastern Russia. The family includes mostly large species, with forewings up to 43 mm in length. Dinopanorpidae is particularly distinguished by a long R1 vein in both the fore- and hind wings, extending almost to the wing apex and bending posteriad distally. Their wings are mostly dark with light bands and spots; have many to extremely dense crossveins; and an expanded costal space in the basal quarter of the forewing, which is more developed in larger species. The rostrum is extended; the medigynium is without tongue-shaped structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207