MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903794267 · doi:10.1093/isd/ixy016

Description of a New<i>Rhagoletis</i>(Diptera: Tephritidae) Species in the<i>tabellaria</i>Species Group

2018· article· en· W2903794267 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Hulbert, Morgan D. Jackson, Glen R. Hood, James J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueInsect Systematics and Diversity · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTephritidaePteromalidaeParasitoidRhagoletisHost (biology)ZoologyGenusBotanyEcologyPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flies in the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) are economically important fruit pests, which also serve as models for studying modes of speciation and coevolution with their hymenopteran parasitoids. We describe the morphology of Rhagoletis bushi n. sp., and its geographic distribution, host association, phylogenetic relationships, and identify an associated species of parasitoid wasp. R. bushi n. sp. is in the tabellaria species group and infests the fruit of buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea) in the Northern Great Plains of North America. There is a suite of morphological characters, and a unique host plant association, that are diagnostic of R. bushi n. sp. Further evidence for the validity of R. bushi n. sp. and its placement within the tabellaria species group comes from a multilocus molecular phylogeny for representatives of species in the tabellaria, pomonella, and cingulata groups inferred from five loci (COI, CAD, period, AATS, and 28S). Additionally, we report a species of parasitoid, Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), attacking R. bushi n. sp.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.153 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsect Systematics and DiversitySame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207