DNA fingerprinting of tabanids (Diptera: Tabanidae) and their respective egg masses using PCR – restriction fragment profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polymerase chain reaction and subsequent restriction fragment profiling analysis were used to associate collected tabanid egg masses with their respective species of adult horse flies and deer flies (Diptera: Tabanidae) in Manitoba, Canada. The ribosomal DNA (rDNA) intergenic spacer between the 28S and 18S ribosomal RNA genes was used successfully to differentiate 34 species of adult tabanids representing five genera: Atylotus (1 sp.), Chrysops (10 spp.), Haematopota (1 sp.), Hybomitra (17 spp.), and Tabanus (5 spp.). rDNA was a suitable molecular target for identifying tabanid species because of the high level of interspecific variation when comparing fragment profiles among different species, and the corresponding minimal intraspecific variation among individuals of the same species. Restriction fragment profiles from 56 field-collected tabanid egg masses were compared with those previously obtained from adults of known species. Egg masses of five species were identified: Hybomitra lasiophthalma (Macquart), Hybomitra nitidifrons nuda (McDunnough), Chrysops aestuans van der Wulp, Chrysops excitans Walker, and Chrysops mitis Osten Sacken. We also provide physical descriptions of these tabanid egg masses along with pictures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".