Morphological differentiation of Limnozetes Hull, 1916 (Acari: Oribatida: Limnozetidae) in the light of ontogenetic studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological variability of Limnozetes Hull, 1916 was investigated in light of the ontogeny of L. lustrum Behan-Pelletier, 1989 and L. rugosus (Sellnick, 1923). The adults of this genus are similar, but the nymphs are differentiated, either boatshaped, with thick and stiff posterior gastronotal setae and rather smooth cuticle, as in L. lustrum, or stocky, with thin gastronotal setae and plicate cuticle, as in L. rugosus. The adult of L. lustrum has ten pairs of notogastral setae, while that of L. rugosus has 10 or 11 pairs, which is noted here for the first time in Limnozetes and has phylogenetic importance. The morphology of juvenile stages of presented species has not been investigated so far. Moreover L. lustrum is recorded for the first time from Europe. Morphological groups within Limnozetes are proposed: ‘ciliatus group’, with L. lustrum and ‘rugosus group’, with L. rugosus.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".