MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521360622 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4169.3.2

A systematic revision of the genus Gnophopsodos Wehrli, 1945, with description of two new species (Lepidoptera: Geometridae)

2016· article· en· W2521360622 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sven Erlacher, Josepha Erlacher

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenome Canada
KeywordsBiologyLepidoptera genitaliaZoologyTaxonTaxonomy (biology)DNA barcodingKey (lock)Male genitaliaGenusEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a comprehensive morphological study besides results of DNA barcoding the genus Gnophopsodos Wehrli, 1945 is taxonomically revised. The taxon comprises nine species. Diagnostic characters are depicted and a key to the species based on the morphology of male genitalia is provided. Males and females (if available) of each species and their genitalia are illustrated. The distribution of all species is described and figured on maps. Gnophopsodos hilmari spec. nov. from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Gnophopsodos sabine spec. nov. and Gnophopsodos ravistriolaria pantherinus subspec. nov., both from the Russian part of the Altai Mountains, are described as new. Gnophopsodos puengeleri (Bohatsch, 1910) stat. rev. is re-established as a separate species. The following synonyms are recognized: Chelegnophos Wehrli, 1951 syn. nov. of Gnophopsodos Wehrli, 1945; Chelegnophos alaianus Viidalepp, 1988 syn. nov. of Gnophopsodos puengeleri (Bohatsch, 1910), Psodos altissimaria Oberthür, 1913 syn. nov. of Gnophopsodos gnophosaria (Oberthür, 1893), and Gnophos orbicularia Püngeler, 1904 syn. nov. of Gnophopsodos stemmataria (Eversmann, 1848) comb. nov. The latter is transferred from the genus Gnophos Treitschke, 1825 to the genus Gnophopsodos.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207