MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158667816 · doi:10.3897/jhr.82.60054

Checklists of the Hymenoptera of Canada, Alaska and Greenland – Introduction

2021· article· en· W3158667816 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew M. R. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hymenoptera Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsHymenopteraIchneumonidaeEulophidaePteromalidaeBraconidaeGeographyEcologySpecies richnessBiologyArchaeologyParasitoid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of described, extant species of the insect order Hymenoptera recorded from northern North America will be published in a series of ten checklists. In total, 9250 species in 27 superfamilies and 84 families are recorded from Canada, the state of Alaska (USA) and Greenland (Denmark). Within northern North America, 8933 species are recorded in Canada (96.6% of the total species), Alaska has 1513 (16.4%) and Greenland has 205 (2.2%). Within Canada, Ontario is the province with the most species recorded (5322, 57.5% of all species in northern North America), followed by Quebec (4207, 45.5%) and British Columbia (4063, 43.9%). At the family level, Ontario has 82 of the 84 recorded families, Quebec has 76 and British Columbia has 71. The most species-rich superfamilies in northern North America are Ichneumonoidea (4438 species, 48.0% of the total); Apoidea (1438, 15.5%) and Chalcidoidea (1246, 13.5%). The largest families are Ichneumonidae (3201 species, 34.6% of the total), Braconidae (1237, 13.4%), Tenthredinidae (573, 6.2%), Eulophidae (379, 4.1%) and Pteromalidae (309, 3.3%). Overall species richness of the Hymenoptera in northern North America is compared with surveys in Russia, Germany, Finland and the British Isles.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hymenoptera ResearchSame topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207