Ability of Cellulose Acetate and Polyacrylamide Enzyme Electrophoresis to Separate 13 Species of Phlebotomine Sand Flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) from Venezuela
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection of cryptic species by biochemical methods indicates that within the phlebotomine fauna morphological data are not always adequate for species diagnosis. Cellulose acetate and polyacrylamide enzyme electrophoresis methods were compared for their effectiveness in identifying 13 species of Venezuelan phlebotomine sand flies and resolving alleles. Eight diagnostic loci unambiguously separated these 13 species of sand flies. Although acrylamide was as effective as cellulose acetate in species separation, differences were detected in the resolution of some alleles. Cellulose acetate identified more alleles at Ak and Fum, and resolved better at Pgm, whereas acrylamide identified more alleles at Gpi, Mdh, and Me. Therefore, erroneous species diagnoses may occur, if diagnostic loci detected by one technique are used by a second technique without adequate reference standards.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".