MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182044614 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3540.1.1

North American members of the reticulata-like species group of the water mite genus Kongsbergia (Acari: Hydrachnidiae: Aturidae)

2012· article· en· W2182044614 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea J. Radwell, Ian M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicStudy of Mite Species
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenusAcariZoologyKey (lock)Taxonomy (biology)SynapomorphyMiteSpecies groupBotanyEcologyPhylogeneticsClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifteen North American species of the water mite genus Kongsbergia, 11 of which are new to science, are described andallocated to the newly proposed reticulata-like species group. This group is characterized by synapomorphic contours ofthe dorsal shield in males in the form of symmetrical ridges, an elevated hump anteromedially and a marked depressionposteromedially that bears a medial ridge with the excretory pore at its posterior end. These species are further assigned to six subgroups diagnosed by various shared derived character states of males. Adults of K. reticulata Habeeb, 1956, K.reticulata labyrintha Habeeb, 1957, and K. cyanea Habeeb, 1981 are redescribed based on examination of types and ad-ditional specimens, and all are recognized as full species. The description of adults of K. robisoni Radwell and Smith,2011, is revised slightly based on observations on specimens from recently discovered populations. Adults of 11 new spe-cies are described including K. appalachiana sp. nov., K. atkinsonae sp. nov., K. cooki sp. nov., K.crista sp. nov., K. crum-pae sp. nov., K. humeralis sp. nov., K. floridana sp. nov., K. laurentiana sp. nov., K. setosa sp. nov., K. texana sp. nov., and K. transversa sp. nov.. Distributional data and a key to males for these species are presented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicStudy of Mite SpeciesFrench-language works237,207