MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066260847 · doi:10.3897/zookeys.192.2364

Description and DNA barcoding of Tipula (Pterelachisus) recondita sp. n. from the Palaearctic region (Diptera, Tipulidae)

2012· article· en· W2066260847 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jukka Salmela, В.Э. Пилипенко, Eero J. Vesterinen

Bibliographic record

VenueZooKeys · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiptera species taxonomy and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocietas pro Fauna et Flora FennicaOskar Öflunds StiftelseGovernment of CanadaSuomen KulttuurirahastoGenome CanadaOntario GenomicsUniversity of GuelphOntario Genomics Institute
KeywordsSubgenusDNA barcodingBiologySubspeciesEcologyTaxonomy (biology)ZoologyRange (aeronautics)Ecoregion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tipula (Pterelachisus) recondita Pilipenko & Salmela, sp. n. is described. The new species is collected from two localities: Finland, Kittilä (North boreal ecoregion) and Russia, Primorski kray (Zone of temperate broadleaf and mixed forests). Although variation in the structure of male hypopygium between the Finnish and Russian populations is observed, DNA barcode sequences differ only by three nucleotides (0.2 % K2P distance), supporting presence of one widespread species. K2P minimum distances between the new species and 17 other species of the subgenus range from 5.3 to 15.8 % (mean 8.8 %). The new species is forest-dwelling, known from an old-growth herb-rich forest (Finland) and Quercus mongolica forest (Russia). The new species is perhaps closest to Tipula (Pterelachisus) imitator Alexander and in lesser extent to Tipula (Pterelachisus) pauli Mannheims; the inner gonostylus of both species are illustrated.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZooKeysSame topicDiptera species taxonomy and behaviorFrench-language works237,207