MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121492153 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3866.1.6

A new concept of Absoloniella (=Ruffodytes syn. n.) for five blind Mediterranean species (Coleoptera: Brachyceridae: Erirhininae)

2014· article· en· W2121492153 on OpenAlexaff
Vasily V. Grebennikov

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHolotypeZoologySynonym (taxonomy)GenusTaxonomy (biology)Type speciesNomenclature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hundred year-long taxonomic ambiguity surrounding two mysterious species originally described as Caulomorphus reitteri Müller, 1912 and Absoloniella cylindrica Formánek, 1913, both known from single specimens believed to be lost, is resolved. This is achieved by designation of their neotypes based on the same specimen collected together, and considered conspecific, with the holotype of Ruffodytes hellenicus Osella, 1973, the latter the type of the genus Ruffodytes Osella, 1973. This action triggers the following nomenclatorial and taxonomic changes: (1) the generic name Ruffodytes Osella, 1973 syn. n. is a junior subjective synonym of Absoloniella Formánek, 1913; (2) the names cylindrica syn. n. and hellenica syn. n. are junior objective and subjective synonyms, respectively, of the name reitteri for the species Absoloniella reitteri (Müller, 1912); (3) the genus Absoloniella currently comprises five species: A. reitteri (Müller, 1912), A. italica (Osella, 1976) comb. n., A. pacei (Osella, 1976) comb. n., A. servadeii (Osella, 1982) and A. nitidipennis (Osella, 1989) comb. n. Puzzling distribution of blind and wingless Mediterranean Absoloniella is briefly discussed.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207