MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966373895 · doi:10.3398/064.079.0202

Do Cytotypes of Black Flies of the Simulium arcticum Complex (Diptera: Simuliidae) Arise from Sibling Species?

2019· article· en· W2966373895 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerald F. Shields, D. Grant Hokit

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern North American Naturalist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsSympatryBlack flyBiologySibling speciesReproductive isolationEcologySimuliumLarvaZoologyTaxonSympatric speciationPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better understand the evolutionary radiation of the Simulium arcticum complex of black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae), we compared the geographic distributions of present-day larvae to their sex-chromosome diversity. We used the 5 known data sets including collections and sex-chromosome analysis from 307 geographic locations of 31 taxa of approximately 20,000 larvae from throughout the geographic range of distribution of the complex, from Alaska, western Canada, and the western United States to southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Siblings (reproductively isolated in sympatry) have considerably larger geographic distributions than do cytotypes (not reproductively isolated in sympatry), suggesting that the former may have been in existence longer than the latter. Simulium negativum (the oldest member of the complex), S. brevicercum (standard noninverted sex chromosomes), S. saxosum (sex determination on the X chromosome), and S. arcticum s. s. (IIL-3) share geographic distributions with all other siblings. Notably, 21 of 22 cytotypes share geographic distributions within those of siblings. Cytotypes are almost always discovered within the geographic distributions of siblings, suggesting that the former might be arising sympatrically.

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 score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern North American NaturalistSame topicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influencesFrench-language works237,207