MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phylogenetic analysis of the corbiculate Apinae based on morphology of the sting apparatus (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

2007· article· en· W2125049100 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie Cardinal, Laurence Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueCladistics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsApidaeHymenopteraBiologyStingAculeataPhylogenetic treeZoologyApoideaBotanyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to test the various competing hypotheses regarding the relationships among the four tribes of corbiculate apine bees (Euglossini "orchid bees", Bombini "bumble bees", Meliponini "stingless bees", and Apini "honey bees") with a completely new set of previously unstudied morphological characters derived from the sting apparatus. The result was one most parsimonious tree of 49 steps, CI = 89, RI = 93 that is perfectly congruent with most studies based on morphological and combined morphological/molecular data, i.e., Euglossini + (Bombini + (Meliponini + Apini)), supporting a well accepted scenario of social evolution for these bees. This data matrix was then combined with other published matrices for this group in order to perform simultaneous analyses. The problem of how to best combine the multiple matrices that did not use the same exemplars was investigated.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations60
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCladisticsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207