MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards a phylogeny of the flesh flies (Diptera: Sarcophagidae): morphology and phylogenetic implications of the acrophallus in the subfamily Sarcophaginae

2010· article· en· W2120221032 on OpenAlexaff
Marjolaine Giroux, Thomas Pape, Terry A. Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMonophylySubgenusSubfamilyCladisticsZoologySister groupPhylogeneticsGenusCladeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The morphology of the acrophallus, the distal portion of the male phallus carrying the phallotreme, was studied in 72 exemplar species representing 56 genera and subgenera of the flesh fly subfamily Sarcophaginae. For 42 of those species, scanning electron microscopy was used to clarify the phallic morphology. Terms used to describe the male genitalia were updated based on new interpretations of homology. Male genitalic characters, combined with other morphological characters of adult males and females and of larvae, were used to construct a phylogeny. The monophyly of the subfamily was supported, and some generic-level sister-group relationships proposed in the literature, but without previous cladistic analyses, were also supported. The genus Blaesoxipha Loew, as currently recognized, was not monophyletic in our analysis. The genus Helicobia Coquillett is synonymized with Sarcophaga Meigen syn. nov. and treated as a subgenus of the latter. The Sarcophaga subgenera Neobellieria Blanchard and Mehria Enderlein were not monophyletic. Many of the clades in the analysis were supported primarily or exclusively by male genitalic character states, highlighting the importance of the male genitalia as a source of morphological characters for sarcophagine phylogeny.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207