MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508444285 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4158.2.1

Description of the second- and third-instar larva of South African Stenomastigus longicornis (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Scydmaeninae)

2016· article· en· W2508444285 on OpenAlexaff
PAWEŁ JAŁOSZYŃSKI, Aleksandra Kilian

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersUniwersytet WrocławskiUniwersytet Przyrodniczy we Wrocławiu
KeywordsBiologySetaInstarSynapomorphyLarvaAnatomyZoologyAppendageEcologyPhylogenetic treeClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second- and third-instar larvae of the South African species of Mastigini, Stenomastigus longicornis, are described. The serial homology of chaetotaxic structures and differences between larval instars are discussed. The larva of Stenomastigus is very similar to that of Palaeostigus, but differences in proportions of body parts, number of setae on the head, thorax and abdomen and possibly also the shape of the antennal sensory appendage can be used to distinguish them. A frontal impression surrounded by modified setae with greatly enlarged surface, presumably functioning as a glandular evaporation apparatus, and the antennomere II subdivided into three sections, are suggested as synapomorphies of Mastigini; within Mastigitae this tribe is also unique in lacking the urogomphs, which are present in larvae of Leptomastacini and Clidicini. Geniculate and slender antennae with a strongly oblique distal margin of antennomere II are a putative larval synapomorphy of Mastigitae.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207