MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885184394 · doi:10.3390/d10030083

Validation of the Names of Five Weevil Taxa Described by Anderson et al., A Review of the Araucaria-Associated Weevils of the Tribe Orthorhinini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Molytinae), with Description of New Species of Ilacuris Pascoe, 1865 and Notopissodes Zimmerman & Oberprieler, 2014 and a New Genus, Kuschelorhinus Anderson & Setliff; Diversity, 2018, 10, 54

2018· review· en· W2885184394 on OpenAlexaff
Robert S. Anderson, Rolf G. Oberprieler, Gregory P. Setliff

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurculionidaeWeevilTaxonGenusNomenclatureTribeAraucariaNew guineaBiologyInternational Code of Zoological NomenclatureGenealogyZoologyEcologyTaxonomy (biology)BotanyAnthropologyEthnologyHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One new genus and four new species of the Orthorhinini from Australia and Papua New Guinea are described, with bibliographic reference to complete descriptions and illustrations in the recent paper by Anderson et al. (2018) published in the journal Diversity 10 (3), 54, in which the names were not made available under the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature dealing with electronic publication, as follows: Ilacuris papuana Anderson & Setliff, sp. n., Ilacuris suttoni Anderson & Setliff, sp. n., Notopissodes variegatus Oberprieler, sp. n., Kuschelorhinus Anderson & Setliff, gen. n. and Kuschelorhinus hirsutus Anderson & Setliff, sp. n.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversitySame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207