MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937658961 · doi:10.24349/acarologia/20184282

Diversity of Peloppiidae (Oribatida) in North America

2018· article· en· W2937658961 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zoë Lindo

Bibliographic record

VenueAcarologia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicStudy of Mite Species
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolarcticOribatidaEcologyBiologySubarctic climateArcticTaigaHabitatAbundance (ecology)BorealTemperate rainforestAcariformesAcariGenusEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Members of the oribatid mite family Peloppiidae are found throughout the Holarctic in subarctic and arctic habitats, and temperate and boreal forests, and while common, are rarely collected in high abundance. Pacific Northwest forest habitats of western Canada have high relative diversity of peloppiid mites representing species of the genera Ceratoppia, Dendrozetes, and Metrioppia. Many of these are newly described species that are seemingly endemic to the region. Here I review the status and diversity of Peloppiidae from North America, and summarize the distributions of described species. Despite recent efforts, significant work remains. Within Ceratoppia two widely-distributed and established species have considerable morphological variation, while the type specimens are missing or destroyed, making confirmation of new specimens difficult. For other genera, extensive review of the Canadian National Collections in Ottawa, Canada suggest there are at least four undescribed species of North American Peloppiidae - two potentially new species of Paenoppia, and new species each of Parapyroppia and Pyroppia.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcarologiaSame topicStudy of Mite SpeciesFrench-language works237,207