MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W60569502 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.1468.1.1

Fifteen new species of Chilicola (Hymenoptera: Apoidea; Colletidae)

2007· article· en· W60569502 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Packer, Julio A. Genaro

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgenusBiologyZoologyHymenopteraGenusTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifteen new species of the xeromelissine bee genus Chilicola are described. Most are either outliers not obviously belonging to currently known subgenera or expand our concepts of previously described subgenera. Species that do not readily fall into presently recognized subgenera are: Chilicola obesifrons Packer, n. sp. and the closely related C. catamarcense Packer, n. sp.; C. unicarinata Packer, n. sp. and the closely related C. chubutense Packer, n. sp., and three comparatively isolated species: C. biguttata Packer, n. sp., C. tregualemu Packer, n. sp., and C. setosicornis Packer, n. sp.. Species that fall within previously described subgenera are: C. (Chilioediscelis) aenigma Packer, n. sp., C. (Prosopoides) granulosa Packer, n. sp., C. (Pseudiscelis) nanula Packer, n. sp., C. (Stenoediscelis) denisii Packer, n. sp., C. tricarinata Packer, n. sp., C. tricarinatoides Packer, n. sp., and C. clavillo Packer, n. sp. The last three species belong to “Oedis- celisca”, a subgenus subsumed within Oediscelis by Michener (1995) but requiring re-evaluation. Chilicola nanula and C. aenigma expand the scope of their respective subgenera. A fifteenth species, C. liliana Packer, n. sp., is not placed to subgenus due to a lack of males. Toro and Moldenke’s (1979) subgenus Stenoediscelis is returned from synonymy and new characters justifying this resurrection are provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207