MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597883141 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3419.1.1

A revision of Biting Midges of the Subgenera Forcipomyia (Metaforcipomyia) and F. (Saliohelea) from Costa Rica (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae)

2012· article· en· W2597883141 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo R. Spinelli, Pablo I. Marino, Art Borkent

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicVector-Borne Animal Diseases
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgenusBiologyCeratopogonidaeZoologySynapomorphyKey (lock)MonophylyEcologyTaxonomy (biology)Phylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Costa Rican species of the subgenus Forcipomyia (Metaforcipomyia) Saunders are revised, primarily based on males. Fourteen new species are described and illustrated, F. (M.) pluvialis Malloch is redescribed, and a key to males and females is provided. One new species of the subgenus Forcipomyia (Saliohelea) Wirth & Ratanaworabhan is described and illustrated and F. (S.) leei Wirth & Ratanaworabhan is redescribed. Forcipomyia (Euprojoannisia) pechumani Bystrak & Wirth is transferred to the subgenus F. (Saliohelea). All adult F. (Metaforcipomyia) lack a hind tibial comb and males have antennal flagellomeres 5–8 fused and these are proposed synapomorphies of the subgenus. A truncate labrum is present in F. pluvialis, F. rivalis n. sp. and F. truncata n. sp. and is a derived feature indicating these species form a monophyletic group. We were unable to suggest a synapomorphy indicating the monophyly of F. (Saliohelea). Nearly all Costa Rican members of the subgenera F. (Metaforcipomyia) and F. (Saliohelea) are restricted to wet habitats and are excluded from the dry northwestern portion of this country. Eleven of the 15 new species described herein are present in the lowlands of Costa Rica, suggesting they are actually more broadly distributed to the north and/or south.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicVector-Borne Animal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207