Molecular approaches identify known species, reveal cryptic species and verify host specificity of Chinese <i>Philotrypesis</i> (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After publication of Zhou et al. (2012), we noticed that data accompanying some of our cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) sequences were incomplete or contained errors. These sequences were all referenced by process ID numbers from the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD, Ratnasingham & Hebert 2007), rather than by GenBank accession numbers. In Table 1 of the original publication, these process IDs all began with a five-letter code, which was either YLCFW or YLCFX. For the 61 COI sequences with BOLD process IDs, the sequencing site was not the one specified in Zhou et al. (2012). These 61 sequences were obtained in 2008 at the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding (CCDB) at the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario (University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada). All other sequences were obtained as specified in the original publication. In addition, collateral information for 28 of these 61 sequences contained errors. Three of the 28 records contained incomplete locality data. All Philotrypesis collected from Ficus hirta were labeled as originating in Fujian. This information is correct for all associated ITS2 sequences, and for the corresponding COI sequences that were identified by GenBank accession numbers in Zhou et al. (2012). However, for the P. josephi records with code JosHirHN, the three COI sequences identified by BOLD process IDs were obtained from specimens collected in Hainan. The remaining 25 affected sequences contained typographical errors in the BOLD process IDs, so a BOLD user who searched for the data using these codes would retrieve the wrong records. Replacement Table 1a lists the 61 records that were identified by BOLD process IDs. It indicates their locations and BOLD IDs as shown in the original manuscript, and the corrections made to 28 of these records. None of these corrections affect the conclusions of the original manuscript. We thank Julie Stahlhut and Paul Hebert for help with the preparation of this Corrigendum. Specimen preparation and sequencing at the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding was supported by an award from the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Ontario Genomics Institute. We also thank the CCDB staff for technical assistance. This research was also supported, in part, by a Visiting Professorship for Senior International Scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and by Discovery Grant A3148 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (to RWM).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".