MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400518015 · doi:10.3390/insects15070518

Uncovering Norway: Descriptions of Four New Aphidiinae Species (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) with Identification Key and Notes on Phylogenetic Relationships of the Subgenus Fovephedrus Chen

2024· article· en· W4400518015 on OpenAlexaff
Korana Kocić, Alf Tore Mjǿs, Jelisaveta Čkrkić, Andjeljko Petrović, Nemanja Popović, Eva Songe Paulsen, Željko Tomanović

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSerbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
KeywordsBraconidaeBiologySubgenusPhylogenetic treeKey (lock)HymenopteraIdentification (biology)Identification keyEvolutionary biologyZoologyTaxonomy (biology)BotanyEcologyParasitoidGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With only 33 reported species, Norway ranks among the European countries with the lowest documented diversity of parasitoids from the subfamily Aphidiinae. The “MUST Malaise” project, carried out by Museum Stavanger in Norway, aimed to assess insect abundance and biodiversity and create a reference base for future studies. The preliminary results of our study revealed four species new to science, indicating that the current number of recorded species in Norway is significantly lower than the actual diversity. All species possess unique combinations of morphological characters, distinguishing them from other known Aphidiinae species. Molecular analysis of the barcoding region confirmed that these specimens all belong to the previously undescribed species. In this study, we describe Aphidius norvegicus sp.n., Praon breviantennalis sp.n., Ephedrus gardenforsi sp.n., and Ephedrus borealis sp.n., all collected in Norway. We also provide an identification key and discuss the phylogenetic relationships within the subgenus Fovephedrus Chen, 1986.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207