An analytical synopsis of caddisfly (Insecta, Trichoptera) taxonomic history and progress in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 1,510 caddisfly species representing 28 families and 155 genera are reported from the 63 states and provinces of Canada and the United States of America (USA). These species have been described over a period of nearly 270 years, with the most prolific period occurring during the 1930-1940s. The families Hydroptilidae (307), Limnephilidae (255), and Hydropsychidae (159) contain the most species, whereas six families contain less than five species each. Canada and the USA host 644 and 1,487 species, respectively. The states and provinces with the greatest species richness are Tennessee (384), Virginia (383), and Alabama (378), and those with the least are Rhode Island (27), Prince Edward Island (23), and Nunavut (15). Differences in state species assemblages largely followed a geographic pattern, with a non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination suggesting six regions of caddisfly diversity corresponding to the central, far north, northeastern, northwestern, southeastern, and southwestern portions of the study area. Caddisfly species richness was highest in the southeastern region, despite being the smallest region of the six, and lowest in the far north. Species rarefaction predicted 129-181 species remain to be discovered within the two countries, while multiple linear regression modeling using common environmental variables suggested 17 states and provinces with at least 50 species remaining to be found in each.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".