Weevils, weevils, weevils everywhere*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An overview is presented of the progress made on the taxonomy, classification and phylogeny of weevils in the 250 years since the first taxonomic descriptions of weevils by Carolus Linnaeus. The number of described weevils species is calculated to be about 62 000 and the likely total number of existing species 220 000, indicating that we have described just over a quarter of the diversity of this important group of beetles and that, at current rates of discovery and description, it will take another 650 years or so to describe the rest. Within the framework of the current concept of weevil phylogeny, a brief account is given of the seven main weevil lineages (families), and of the subfamilies of the largest of them, the Curculionidae, summarising their diversity, distribution and biology and identifying the major classificatory problems remaining in each. In conjunction with the phylogenetic hypothesis of weevil relationships and their fossil record, which is briefly summarised, the evolutionary history of weevils is mapped as a sequence of key evolutionary innovations that together have led to the phenomenal diversification and success of weevils.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".