MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994262556 · doi:10.3897/zookeys.897.46344

The Hydradephaga (Coleoptera, Haliplidae, Gyrinidae, and Dytiscidae) fauna of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada: new records, distributions, and faunal composition

2019· article· en· W2994262556 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yves Alarie

Bibliographic record

VenueZooKeys · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInvertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolarcticFaunaDytiscidaeCapeNearctic ecozoneGeographyNova scotiaEcologyZoologyBiologyTaxonomy (biology)ArchaeologyGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Haliplidae, Gyrinidae, and Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada were surveyed during the years 2006–2007. A total of 2027 individuals from 85 species was collected from 94 different localities, which brings to 87 the number of species recorded for this locality. Among these, Heterosternuta allegheniana (Matta & Wolfe), H. wickhami (Zaitzev), Hydroporus appalachius Sherman, H. gossei Larson & Roughley, H. nigellus Mannerheim, H. puberulus LeConte, Ilybius picipes (Kirby), and I. wasastjernae (C.R. Sahlberg) are reported for the first time in Nova Scotia. The Nearctic component of the fauna is made up of 71 species (81.6%), the Holarctic component of 16 species (18.4%). Most species are characteristic of both the Boreal and Atlantic Maritime Ecozones and have a transcontinental distribution but 19 species (21.8%), which are generally recognized as species with eastern affinities. In an examination of the Hydradephaga of insular portions of Atlantic Canada, it was shown that the island faunas of Cape Breton Island and Prince Edward Island are very similar (87 and 84 species, respectively) despite differences in composition suggesting that more Hydradephaga species have yet to be found on Cape Breton Island.

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 score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZooKeysSame topicInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyFrench-language works237,207