MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407292919 · doi:10.5252/zoosystema2025v47a2

New species and new records of leaf-miner flies (Diptera, Agromyzidae) from rainforest and inselberg at Mitaraka (French Guiana)

2025· article· fr· W4407292919 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Boucher, Marc A. A. Pollet

Bibliographic record

VenueZoosystema · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgromyzidaeRainforestEcologyGeographyBiologyTaxonomy (biology)Zoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nouvelles espèces et nouvelles signalisations de mouches mineuses (Diptera, Agromyzidae) de la forêt tropicale et de l'inselberg de Mitaraka (Guyane). La faune des Agromyzidae Fallén, 1823 de Guyane n'a jamais été étudiée auparavant et seules cinq espèces bien connues et économiquement importantes ont été signalées dans cette région. Une expédition récente au massif du Mitaraka, une région largement inexplorée de la Guyane, a abouti à une diversité remarquable d'Agromyzidae. Cette étude fournit les premiers résultats du traitement taxonomique de ces Agromyzidae avec la description de huit nouvelles espèces: Agromyza mitarakensis Boucher, n. sp., Calycomyza inselbergensis Boucher, n. sp., Cerodontha pseudonigrihalterata Boucher, n. sp., Liriomyza touroulti Boucher, n. sp., Nemorimyza thanatos Boucher, n. sp., Phytobia corona Boucher, n. sp., Phytobia dalensi Boucher, n. sp., Phytobia pluviasilvae Boucher, n. sp. et la première signalisation de deux espèces néotropicales précédemment inconnues en Guyane: Calycomyza grenadensis Zlobin, 1996 et Phytoliriomyza jurgensi Spencer, 1983. Des diagnostics et des notes systématiques sont fournis pour chaque espèce ainsi que des photographies des habitus et des genitalia mâles. La faune des Agromyzidae de Guyane compte aujourd'hui 15 espèces décrites.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoosystemaSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207