MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100288298

Description of a new genus of primitive ants from Canadian amber, with the study of relationships between stem- and crown-group ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

2017· preprint· en· W3100288298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leonid H. Borysenko

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEusocialityScapeBiologyHymenopteraEvolutionary biologyTaxonomy (biology)GenusZoologyGroup (periodic table)EcologyBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A detailed study of the holotype of Sphecomyrma canadensis Wilson, 1985 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Canadian amber has led to the conclusion that the specimen belongs to a new genus, here named Boltonimecia gen.n. Since the taxonomy of stem-group ants is not well understood, in order to find the taxonomic position of this genus, it is necessary to review the classification of stem-group ants in a study of their relation to crown-group ants. In the absence of data for traditional taxonomic approaches, a statistical study was done based on a morphometric analysis of antennae. Scape elongation is believed to play an important role in the evolution of eusociality in ants; however, this hypothesis has never been confirmed statistically. The statistical analysis presented herein lends support to the view that antennal morphology reliably distinguishes stem-group ants from crown-group ants, to determine whether a species belongs to one or the other group. This, in turn, may indicate a relationship exists between eusociality and scape elongation. A review of Cretaceous records of ants is made and the higher classification of Formicidae with definitions of stem and crown groups is proposed. Newly obtained data are discussed focusing particularly on the origin, evolution and diversity of ants.

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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207