Using Frons Width to Differentiate Blow Fly Species (Diptera: Calliphoridae) <i>Phormia regina</i> (Meigen) and <i>Protophormia terraenovae</i> (Robineau‐Desvoidy)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protophormia terraenovae (Robineau-Desvoidy) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) and Phormia regina (Meigen) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) are morphologically similar blow fly species commonly used for estimating postmortem intervals. Field collection and storage of adults can result in color changes, in particular on calypters and palps; often collected specimens show damage such as wing fray or fungal growth. We measured the frons width: total head width ratio using photographs (ImageJ version 1.49) to differentiate these two species. Both sexes were distinguishable to species, with the greatest difference between males: 12.34% P. terraenovae versus 1.62% P. regina, less so for females: 40.25% P. terraenovae, versus 33.65% P. regina. Incorporating this feature into future blow fly keys would help with distinguishing field-caught specimens when other features are obstructed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".