MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082480248 · doi:10.1002/jmor.21241

Characterization and mapping of sensilla on the head appendages of noterid larvae (Coleoptera: Noteridae), and development of a preliminary biometric method for taxa delimitation

2020· article· en· W3082480248 on OpenAlexaff
Juan I. Urcola, César J. Benetti, Yves Alarie, Georgina Rodríguez, Mariano C. Michat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Morphology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersUniversidad de Buenos Aires
KeywordsBiologyAppendageAquatic insectTaxonInstarLarvaZoologyInsectArthropod mouthpartsHabitatBotanyAnatomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Larvae of the burrowing water beetle family Noteridae are distributed worldwide and are often abundant in a broad range of aquatic habitats, playing an important role in structuring freshwater communities, yet they have remained among the most poorly studied groups of aquatic beetles. Studies on sensillar equipment of aquatic insect larvae are largely lacking, despite their potential use in phylogeny and biometric identification methods. In this article, the external morphology and distribution of sensilla on the head appendages of first instar larvae of selected genera of Noteridae were examined using scanning electron microscopy. Seven main types were distinguished based on their morphological structure: basiconica (3 subtypes), campaniformia (2 subtypes), chaetica (7 subtypes), coeloconica (6 subtypes), coniform complex (2 subtypes), placodea, and styloconica (3 subtypes). The apex of the labial palpus was found to be the most variable and informative region in regard to the number, relative position, and topology of sensilla. Fingerprint models were, therefore, generated for this region in each of the studied genera, allowing their identification.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MorphologySame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207