MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139429173 · doi:10.3897/zookeys.1024.60393

Review of the North American fauna of Drymeia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae) and evaluation of DNA barcodes for species-level identification in the genus

2021· article· en· W3139429173 on OpenAlexafffund
Vera S. Sorokina

Bibliographic record

VenueZooKeys · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDNA barcodingTaxonFaunaBiologyGenusMuscidaeZoologyInterspecific competitionEvolutionary biologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American fauna of Drymeia Meigen was studied. Four new species are described ( Drymeia hucketti sp. nov. , Drymeia ponti sp. nov. , Drymeia vockerothi sp. nov. , Drymeia woodorum sp. nov. ), and three new synonymies are proposed: Drymeia amnicola (Huckett, 1966) (= Drymeia rivalis (Huckett, 1966), syn. nov. ); Drymeia glacialis (Rondani, 1866) (= Drymeia alpicola (Rondani, 1871), syn. nov. ); and Drymeia spinitarsis (Aldrich, 1918) (= Drymeia longiseta Sorokina & Pont, 2015, syn. nov. ). An annotated checklist, DNA barcodes (when available), and keys for each sex of the 24 named species of North American Drymeia are provided. The utility of DNA barcodes for the identification of Drymeia species across a wide geographical range was explored using sequences from five countries. A match between morphology and DNA barcodes was found for 71% (22/31) of species studied (including three unnamed taxa). The remaining nine species clustered into two groups of taxa with very little interspecific variation within clusters (groups of two and seven species). Caution is advised against using DNA barcoding as the only determination tool for Drymeia material without prior knowledge of its limitations for certain species groups.

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)0.001
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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZooKeysSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207