MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025866070 · doi:10.1080/14888386.2002.9712613

Exploring the diversity of flies (Diptera)

2002· article· en· W2025866070 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey H. Skevington, P. T. Dang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityDiversity (politics)BiologyEcologyTourismGeographyPollinationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flies (Diptera) are an important but underappreciated part of our planet's biodiversity. With over 124,000 described species, and countless more awaiting discovery, they are one of the most diverse groups of organisms on Earth. This series of ten papers explores the diversity of Diptera. Several authors describe the diversity of dipteran lifestyles and behaviours, both as larvae and adults. They also reveal the various roles that these animals play in the ecological interactions of the planet—countless numbers of flies feed on plants, control pest arthropods (including other flies!), break down rotting vegetation and excrement, pollinate flowers, provide food for other species, and of course, spread diseases. Indeed, because of their role as vectors of disease, flies have almost single-handedly prevented the economic development of countries in tropical Africa and South America. But flies are used in positive ways by humans, too, and several authors describe their use in forensic science, molecular research, and even as “main attractions” in the tourism industry. The intent of this series of papers is to encourage a broader interest in Diptera that, ideally, will lead to further research and conservation efforts.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.066 · 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

Citations104
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversitySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207