Light Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy of Colpocephalum nanum Piaget, 1890 (Phthiraptera: Amblycera: Colpocephalidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the morphological characteristics of Colpocephalum nanum (C. nanum) Piaget, 1890 using light microscopy (LM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). METHODS: For this purpose, the C. nanum specimens collected from long-legged buzzards, Buteo rufinus (B. rufinus) (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae), in Turkey were examined under LM and SM for morphological characteristics. The specimens were fixed and kept in 70% ethanol, cleared and mounted on the slides in Canada balsam. They were examined for morphological characteristics under LM. Some of the samples were put in a plate on absorbing paper and kept overnight, for ether to evaporate. These samples were mounted on aluminum stubs to study the ventral surface by placing them on their dorsal or ventral surface on double-sided adhesive tape. They were sputter-coated three times with gold, each time for approximately 7 minutes and later viewed using SEM (Zeiss SUPRA 55 VP FE-SEM and Zeiss EVO lS 10). RESULTS: Parts of the specimens were photographed, and the obtained data about morphological characteristic were evaluated in detail. CONCLUSION: The LM and SEM photos of C. nanum were compared, and information about the important criteria for diagnosis and other morphological characteristics was obtained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".