MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138721899 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4942.1.1

Reclassification of the plant bug genus Pilophorus in Japan and key to the genera and species of Japanese Pilophorini (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae: Phylinae)

2021· article· en· W3138721899 on OpenAlexaff
Tomohide Yasunaga, Ram Keshari Duwal, Yukinobu Nakatani

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHemiptera Insect Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiridaeHemipteraHeteropteraTaxonKey (lock)FaunaGenusBiologyIdentification keyTribeZoologyEcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Japanese fauna of the myrmecomorphic plant bug genus Pilophorus Hahn is updated and reclassified. Seventeen species are now recognized, including three herein described as new, P. hyotan, P. satoyamanus and P. setulosellus; and P. pullulus Poppius, 1914 which is reinstated as valid and recorded from Japan for the first time. The identity of P. okamotoi Miyamoto Lee, 1966, originally described from Korean Jeju Island and previously confused with P. satoyamanus n. sp., is reconfirmed and rediagnosed. Frequently misidentified species, P. erraticus Linnavuori, 1962 P. pseudoperplexus Josifov, 1987 and P. setulosus Horváth, 1905 as well as the little known taxon, P. choii, are rediagnosed. The distribution and diagnostic features of P. typicus (Distant, 1909) are presented in light of the recognition of P. hyotan n. sp. An updated checklist and a key to genera and species of the tribe Pilophorini are provided to aid in unequivocal identification of every Japanese pilophorine taxon. A new species of Pherolepis Kulik from Kyushu, P. hizenicus, is also described.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.215
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicHemiptera Insect StudiesFrench-language works237,207