MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153652167 · doi:10.2992/007.081.0201

A Review of the Mustelid-Infesting Fleas in the Family Ceratophyllidae (Insecta: Siphonaptera)

2013· review· en· W2153652167 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert E. Lewis, Ralph P. Eckerlin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Carnegie Museum · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYersinia bacterium, plague, ectoparasites research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRothschildSynonym (taxonomy)TaxonSubgenusZoologyGeographyBiologyEcologyTaxonomy (biology)ArchaeologyGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The three ceratophyllid taxa known to contain specific ectoparasites of mustelid hosts of the genera Mustela Linnaeus, 1758, and Martes Pinel, 1792, are discussed. The subgenera Kueichenlipsylla Smit, 1983, Paracallopsylla Ioff, 1936, and Rosickyiana Smit, 1972, are elevated to generic status. Individual accounts include generic diagnoses, more detailed descriptions of both sexes, where available, and illustrations of diagnostic characters employed in separating the genera. A key is provided that separates both the genera and the species involved. These are: Kueichenlipsylla atrox (Jordan, 1925), known only from the Canadian Sub-Region of the Nearctic Region; Paracallopsylla kaznakovi (Wagner, 1928), restricted to the higher elevations of Central Asia; and Rosickyiana lunata (Jordan and Rothschild, 1920), known from a number of collections from western Europe, east to Alaska and central Canada. The status of these taxa is reviewed and their modified nomenclatural ranking proposed. New synonymy is proposed for Ceratophyllus tundrensis Holland, 1945, as a junior synonym of Rosickyiana lunata (Jordan and Rothschild, 1920).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Carnegie MuseumSame topicYersinia bacterium, plague, ectoparasites researchFrench-language works237,207