MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051965726 · doi:10.4039/ent132411-4

REVISION OF THE NEARCTIC SPECIES OF <i>LAUXANIA</i> (DIPTERA: LAUXANIIDAE)

2000· article· en· W2051965726 on OpenAlexafffund
Joëlle R. Pérusse, Terry A. Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiptera species taxonomy and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNearctic ecozoneBiologyPhallus (fungus)MonophylyZoologyGenusMale genitaliaType speciesPhylogeneticsClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The North American species of Lauxania Latreille are revised. The genus contains five Nearctic species: L. albiseta Coquillett, L. glabrifronssp.nov., L. kafaristasp.nov., L. nigrimana Coquillett, and L. shewellisp.nov. All Nearctic species are illustrated and keyed. Consistent genitalic differences between Nearctic and Palaearctic specimens of the species usually identified as Lauxania cylindricornis (Fabricius) justify the recognition of the Nearctic specimens as a distinct species (L. shewelli). The male genitalia of Lauxania represent two types: the apparently plesiomorphic type has a simple rodlike phallapodeme, membranous phallus, and pointed unbranched postgonites; the apomorphic type has the phallapodeme expanded into a sclerotized hood surrounding the base of the phallus, a convoluted sclerotized phallus, and branched postgonites. These two genitalic types also occur in the related genus Calliopum Strand, which provides strong evidence that these genera, as currently recognized, may not be monophyletic relative to one another.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicDiptera species taxonomy and behaviorFrench-language works237,207