Revision and morphological analysis of the Ragadidae (Insecta, Diptera)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several taxonomic groups within Empidoidea Latreille, 1809 have been subject to unclear phylogenetic assignments along with multiple parallel hypotheses causing difficulties in classification and morphological identification. This study reviews the internal classification of the Ragadidae and includes a diagnosis and description of all included subfamilies and genera based on the results of an analysis of morphological characters using maximum parsimony. Illustration of important characters and a key to all genera in the family is given. The genus Hormopeza Zetterstedt, 1838 is found to be most closely related to Anthepiscopus Becker, 1891 and Iteaphila Zetterstedt, 1838, and the subfamily Iteaphilinae Wahlberg & Johanson, 2018 is therefore expanded to also include that genus. Hormopeza is consequently excluded from Ragadinae Sinclair, 2016. This study provides diagnoses, descriptions and keys in a contribution to a thorough classification of the empidoid groups and increased ease in morphological recognition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".