MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177509466 · doi:10.3897/asp.72.e31893

Systematic revision of the Oriental planthopper genus Miasa Distant (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha: Dictyopharidae), with description of a new genus from southern India

2017· article· en· W2177509466 on OpenAlexaff
Zhi‐Shun Song, Michael D. Webb, Ai-Ping Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueArthropod Systematics & Phylogeny · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsBiologyPlanthopperHemipteraZoologyTaxonomy (biology)MonophylyGenusNymphPhylogenetic treeClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dictyopharid planthopper genus Miasa Distant, 1906 (Orthopagini) is revised to include three known species, M. producta (Lethierry, 1888), M. smaragdilinea (Walker, 1857), and M. wallacei Muir, 1923, and two new species M. borneensis sp.n. and M. nigromaculata sp.n., all distributed in Southeast Asia. The confusion regarding the taxonomy of Miasa species is clarified on the basis of a critical review and examination of historical material. Male genitalia of all species and fifth-instar nymph of M. smaragdilinea are described and illustrated for the first time. A new genus Indomiasa gen.n. which is closely related to Miasa, is also established for a single new species, I. distanti sp.n., from southern India. A phylogenetic analysis based on morphological characters of adults was conducted to reconstruct the species-level phylogenetic relationships of Miasa and Indomiasa. The results show that the monophyly of Miasa and Miasa + Indomiasa is well supported. Keys to the genera of Orthopagini in the Oriental region and to the species of Miasa are provided.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthropod Systematics & PhylogenySame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207