MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087768886 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4853.3.3

Revision of the Nearctic species of Gimnomera Rondani (Diptera: Scathophagidae), with morphological phylogeny and DNA barcodes

2020· article· en· W3087768886 on OpenAlexaff
MARIE-EVE CHAGNON, Bradley J. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiptera species taxonomy and behavior
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNearctic ecozoneBiologyHolarcticMonophylyZoologyCladisticsTaxonomy (biology)DNA barcodingPhylogeneticsGenusCladeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nearctic species of Gimnomera Rondani are revised and includes eight species, of which three are new to science (G. aquilonia sp. nov., G. cerea (Coquillett), G. cuneiventris (Zetterstedt), G. incisurata Malloch, G. subvittata (Malloch), G. terrywheeleri sp. nov., G. tibialis (Malloch), G. vockerothi sp. nov.). Gimnomera cuneiventris is newly recognized as Holarctic in distribution. Gimnomera fasciventris Malloch is removed and transferred to the genus Acerocnema, comb. nov. An additional Nearctic species is recognized but not described due to lack of male specimens. Species descriptions, diagnoses and distribution maps are presented, including images of the male terminalia as well as additional diagnostic characters. A key to the Nearctic species is also provided. A morphological cladistic analysis of 12 species reveals that the Nearctic and Palearctic species do not form separate monophyletic groups. COI mitochondrial DNA barcode sequences were obtained for eight Nearctic species of Gimnomera.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicDiptera species taxonomy and behaviorFrench-language works237,207