MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910489403 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4544.3.4

Description of the second- and third instar larvae of Platynectes (s. str.) decemnotatus (Aubé, 1838) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Agabinae: Platynectini)

2019· article· en· W2910489403 on OpenAlexaff
César J. Benetti, Mariano C. Michat, Yves Alarie, Neusa Hamada

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSetaBiologyInstarChaetotaxyDytiscidaeLarvaAnatomyZoologyDorsumEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second- and third instar larvae of Platynectes (s. str.) decemnotatus (Aubé, 1838) are described and illustrated in detail for the first time, with special emphasis on morphometry and chaetotaxy. Larvae of P. decemnotatus can be distinguished from most other Agabinae by having secondary setae on the urogomphus and share with the other known species described in detail the presence of a ventroapical spinula on antennomere 3 and the absence of an occipital suture, natatory dorsal setae on tibia and tarsus and natatory setae on urogomphus. Platynectes decemnotatus larvae differ from larvae of Agabus Leach, 1817, Hydrotrupes Sharp, 1882 (currently in Hydrotrupini), Ilybiosoma Crotch, 1873, Ilybius Erichson, 1832 and the previously described Platynectes species in having a one-segmented urogomphus, a character previously observed only in larvae of Agabinus Crotch, 1873. The second- and third instar larvae of P. decemnotatus differ from those of P. (Agametrus) curtulus (Régimbart, 1899) in having the apical lateroventral process of antennomere 3 protruding (not protruding in P. curtulus). The third-instar larva of P. decemnotatus can also be distinguished from that of P. (Gueorguievtes) decempunctatus (Fabricius, 1775) by the absence of secondary dorsal setae on the tibia.

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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207