MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602651976 · doi:10.3897/zookeys.664.11881

A revision of the Oriental species of Bolitogyrus Chevrolat (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Staphylininae)

2017· article· en· W2602651976 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Brunke

Bibliographic record

VenueZooKeys · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenusKey (lock)SynapomorphyBiologyZoologyIdentification keyEcologyPhylogenetic treeClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Oriental species of the relictual genus Bolitogyrus are revised based on 200 specimens. An updated description of the genus is provided, including additional putative synapomorphies. Fifty valid Oriental species are diagnosed herein and the following nineteen are described as new to science: B. concavus sp. n.; B. confusus sp. n.; B. himalayicus sp. n.; B. khasiensis sp. n.; B. luteus sp. n.; B. mulayitensis sp. n.; B. nanus sp. n.; B. nokrek sp. n.; B. pecki sp. n.; B. pederseni sp. n.; B. phukhieo sp. n.; B. rougemonti sp. n.; B. sepilok sp. n.; B. schillhammeri sp. n.; B. smetanai sp. n.; B. solodovnikovi sp. n.; B. temburong sp. n.; B. tigris sp. n.; and B. tumidus sp. n. The following synonymies are proposed: Cyrtothorax borneensis Cameron, 1942, syn. n. = Cyrtothorax caesareus Bernhauer, 1915; Cyrtothorax octomaculatus Cameron, 1937 syn. n. = Quedius ornatipennis Wendeler, 1927. Quedius (Raphirus) ornatipennis is moved to Bolitogyrus as B. ornatipennis (Wendeler), comb. n. A lectotype is designated for Cyrtothorax rufipennis Cameron, 1937. Several species are named in recognition of conservation efforts to protect tropical primary forests in Asia that are important to the survival of many Bolitogyrus species. All available bionomic and distributional data for Oriental Bolitogyrus are summarized, and an identification key is provided.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZooKeysSame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207