MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086559575 · doi:10.14411/eje.2004.018

Relationships among coleopteran suborders and major endoneopteran lineages: Evidence from hind wing characters

2004· article· en· W2086559575 on OpenAlexaff
Jarmila Kukalová-Peck, John F. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Entomology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyWingEvolutionary biologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A phylogenetic analysis of the four coleopteran suborders (Polyphaga, Archostemata, Myxophaga and Adephaga), four other endoneopteran taxa (Strepsiptera, Neuropterida, Mecopterida and Hymenoptera) and three neopteran outgroups (Orthoneoptera, Blattoneoptera and Hemineoptera) is performed based on 63 characters of hind wing venation, articulation and folding patterns, with character states coded for the groundplan of each taxon (not for exemplar genera or species). The shortest tree found using Winclada with Nona exhibits the following topology: Orthoneoptera + (Blattoneoptera + (Hemineoptera + Endoneoptera: (Hymenoptera + ((Neuropterida + Mecopterida) + (Coleoptera + Strepsiptera))))). Homologization of the hind wing venation in Coleoptera is reviewed and updated, and comments are made concerning recent works on wing folding. Recent phylogenetic schemes proposed for the orders of Endoneoptera and suborders of Coleoptera are reviewed and their supporting evidence critically examined. The special role and influence of the hind wing anojugal lobe on the diversification of Neoptera and Endoneoptera is discussed. A scenario is proposed for the origin and evolution of the insect hind wing.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations241
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of EntomologySame topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207