MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561029197 · doi:10.1111/aen.12254

A century on from <i>The Biology of Dragonflies</i> by Tillyard 1917: what have we learned since then?

2016· article· en· W2561029197 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustral Entomology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)EcologySystematicsEnvironmental ethicsZoologyBiologyPhilosophyTaxonomy (biology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The field of odonatology has developed considerably during the past century. Three figures, namely E. Selys‐Longchamps, R.J. Tillyard and P.S. Corbet, have undisputedly founded our current knowledge of odonatology and contributed massively to the understanding of systematics, biology, ecology and behaviour of odonates. The year 2017 will mark the 100th anniversary of Tillyard's The Biology of Dragonflies . We review the book and the author's life and contributions to Australian odonatology. We present an updated history of odonatology and highlight prominent advances in the field. The influence of the book on non‐scientists is described. Future research in odonatology on aspects that have not been studied and others that need further investigations are discussed.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.181 · 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