MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566877307 · doi:10.21900/j.inhs.v3.112

A Descriptive Catalogue of the Phalangiinae of Illinois

2019· article· en· W2566877307 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clarence Moores Weed

Bibliographic record

VenueIllinois Natural History Survey bulletin/Bulletin - Illinois Natural History Survey · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreaturesGenusNothingGenealogyZoologyHistoryClassicsBiologyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The great majority of the American species of those familiar creatures commonly known as ''harvest-men " or "daddy-long-legs" (not to be confounded with the crane-flies— Tipulida'—which go by by the latter name in Europe) belong to the subfamily PJialangiind' of the family Phalangi(Ja> of the suborder Opilonea and order Arthrogastra. Though abundant and widely distributed, these arachnids have as yet received comparatively little attention in this country. The first American descriptions were published by Thomas Say in 1821 (Jour. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., Vol. IT., pp. 65-68), when four species were characterized under the genus Phalangium. Besides the above the only descriptive paper that has appeared is that by Dr. Horatio C. Wood, Jr., entitled "On the Phalangese of the United States of America," which was published in 1868 in the Communications of the Essex Institute (Vol. VI., pp. 10-40). In 1885, Prof. L. M. Underwood published a list of the described species (Canadian Entomologist, Vol. XVI., pp. 167-160), but added nothing to our knowledge of the group. Finally, in the "American Naturalist" for October, 1887 (Vol. XXL, p. 935), the present writer published a brief note calling attention to the proper generic position of several species hitherto retained in the old genus Phalangium.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.166 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIllinois Natural History Survey bulletin/Bulletin - Illinois Natural History SurveySame topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207