Casey’s conundrum, a review of the genus <i>Semanotus</i> Mulsant (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae: Callidiini) in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North American species of Semanotus Mulsant, 1839 are reviewed. Semanotus ligneus (Fabricius, 1787), Semanotus amplus amplus (Casey, 1912) new status, S. amplus basalis (Casey, 1924) new status, Semanotus amplus sequoiae Van Dyke, 1923 new status, Semanotus conformis Casey, 1924 new status, Semanotus terminatus Casey, 1912 new status, Semanotus amethystinus (LeConte, 1853), Semanotus juniperi (Fisher, 1915), and Semanotus litigiosus (Casey, 1891) are recognized as valid. A key to the North American fauna, as well as to Semanotus japonicus Lacordaire, 1869 and Semanotus australis Giesbert, 1993 is included. A morphometric study was conducted using 37 measured characters from adults of S. litigiosus. Data were examined using stepwise discriminant analysis to determine which characters aid in the diagnosis of taxa, and their amounts of resolving power using canonical variates analysis. Morphometrics revealed significant sexual dimorphism among taxa and suggested that three taxa were present, however, only two taxa could be reasonably separated using observable characters. Phylogenetic analysis using a hypothetical ancestor as out-group returned a single most parsimonious tree for North American Semanotus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".