<I>The Insects and Arachnids of Canada: Coleoptera: Histeridae</I>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Y. Bousquet and S. Laplante, NRC Research Press, Ottowa, Ontario, Canada, 2006, 485 pages, $48 (soft), ISBN 066-019-399-X In the 24th installment of the “Insects and Arachnids of Canada” series, Yves Bousquet and Serge Laplante have upheld and probably surpassed the consistently high standards of the series. Histerid beetles have rarely been subjected to such careful treatment for so large and significant a geographic area. The authors’ primary goal, to provide a resource for identification of Canadian histerids, is admirably met. The book is sufficiently detailed and well illustrated to transform this formerly formidable task into a realistic goal for any interested researcher. The book provides thorough taxonomic treatment for 34 genera and 146 species known (135 spp.) or expected to occur in Canada. (The usual tag “… and Alaska” is not appended to this book’s title, but it would not seem that any Alaskan species are missed here.) This represents about two-thirds of Nearctic histerid genera and one-third of Nearctic species. Seven new species are described, in the genera Acritus, Gnathoncus, Euspilotus, Xerosaprinus, Hypocaccus, Eblisia, and Psiloscelis. Five formerly synonymous names are reinstated as valid species, and three new junior synonyms are designated. Introductory material includes an overview of histerid morphology, mainly to introduce terminology used in keys and descriptions as well as brief discussions of histerid biology and classification. The taxonomic treatments include keys in English and French, complete synonymies, diagnoses from similar Canadian species, brief morphological descriptions, and summaries of broad-scale distributional and biological data. Dot maps of confirmed Canadian records are provided (although without accompanying label data, which might have made a valuable appendix). The book ends with a complete bibliography, a checklist of species in a table indicating known occurrence by province, a glossary of morphological and taxonomic terms (with French equivalents), and a complete taxonomic index. The book builds on the groundwork laid in the same authors’ (Bousquet and Laplante 1999) treatment of the histerid fauna of Quebec.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.243 | 0.135 |
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".