MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035237922 · doi:10.5194/fr-23-105-2020

Description of the male of fossil <i>Calomicrus eocenicus</i> Bukejs et Bezděk (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae) from Eocene Baltic amber using X-ray microtomography

2020· article· en· W3035237922 on OpenAlexaff
Andris Bukejs, Jan Bezděk, Vitalii I. Alekseev, Kristaps Kairišs, Ryan C. McKellar

Bibliographic record

VenueFossil record · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsRoyal Saskatchewan MuseumUniversity of Regina
FundersShirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences
KeywordsSexual dimorphismAedeagusBaltic amberBiologyExtant taxonZoologyPaleontologyEvolutionary biologyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A male representative of the extinct species Calomicrus eocenicus Bukejs et Bezděk, 2014 (Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae) is found and described for the first time from Eocene Baltic amber using X-ray microtomography. The aedeagus is well preserved within the body cavity of the specimen, and it is illustrated in detail. This fossil species exhibits distinct sexual dimorphism: the male has a smaller total body size, as well as a copula-adapted modification in abdominal ventrite 5 (apical margin deeply trilobed, with round medial fovea present); meanwhile the female is larger in body size and has a simple abdominal ventrite 5 (without fovea, non-incised and widely rounded apically). Similar sexually dimorphic characters are typical for extant members of the tribe Luperini, and this report is the first time that they are described in an Eocene species. The known sexually dimorphic characters present in Coleoptera within Eocene Baltic amber are briefly discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFossil recordSame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207