MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411721140 · doi:10.1093/jme/tjaf067

Recognition of mosquito subspecies: the case for <i>Aedes aegypti</i> (Diptera: Culicidae)

2025· review· en· W4411721140 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey R. Powell, Andrea Gloria‐Soria, John Soghigian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Entomology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsBiologyAedes aegyptiSubspeciesAedesVector (molecular biology)ZoologyEcologyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the recent proposal by Harbach and Wilkerson to eliminate all Culicidae (mosquito) subspecies names. We defend and promote the use of subspecies for the important vector Aedes aegypti (L.): Aedes aegypti aegypti and Ades aegypti formosus. Harbach and Wilkerson would raise the latter to Aedes formosus. We briefly review evidence on this group with relation to various species concepts and find little or no support for this species designation. The 2 forms fit most concepts of subspecies and we advocate continued use of subspecies. Workers on other culicid groups may wish to retain subspecies when accurate, useful, and stable (historical continuity).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.338 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EntomologySame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207