MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591632773 · doi:10.5852/ejt.2017.292

Redescription of the types of species of Anastatus Motschulsky, 1859 (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eupelmidae) described by J.K. Sheng and coauthors

2017· article· en· W2591632773 on OpenAlexafffund
Lingfei Peng, Lu Tang, Gary A. P. Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Taxonomy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersSpecialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Fujian ProvinceAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiologyHymenopteraEcologyZoologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six species of Anastatus Motschulsky, 1859 (Hymenoptera: Eupelmidae) were described from China in Chinese by J.K. Sheng and coauthors in 1997 and 1998: A. dexingensis, A. flavipes, A. fulloi, A. huangi, A. meilingensis and A. shichengensis. This represents almost half the species of Anastatus recorded from China, but no keys were given to differentiate the species and the original descriptions included only simple line drawings to illustrate the species. Because recognition of these species is critical prior to clarifying the Anastatus fauna of China and of the eastern Palaearctic and Oriental regions, we have redescribed the six species in detail in English based on original type material, illustrating the species through macrophotography of type material and providing a key to differentiate females of the species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of TaxonomySame topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207