MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893004570 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14033644

Endophloeus gorskii Alekseev et Bukejs 2016

2024· article· en· W6893004570 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsRoyal Saskatchewan MuseumUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAedeagusOpacityPopulationPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endophloeus gorskii Alekseev et Bukejs, 2016 (Figs 30–32) Material examined. One specimen with collection number JDC-9315 [JDC], Baltic amber; adult, sex unknown (Figs 30–31). A complete beetle is included in a transparent, yellow amber piece with dimensions of 20× 17 mm and a maximum thickness of 5 mm, preserved without supplementary fixation. Syninclusions: numerous minute detrital particles. One specimen with collection number ABAC 063 [ACAB] (No. JDC-6438 ex. coll. Jonas Damzen), Baltic amber; adult, male (Fig. 32). A complete beetle with partially exposed metathoracic wings and apical portion of aedeagus is included in a transparent, yellow amber piece with dimensions of 14× 10 mm and a maximum thickness of 5 mm, preserved without supplementary fixation. Ventral portion of specimen is completely obscured by ‘milky’ opacity within amber. Syninclusions: absent. Note. Body length of beetle JDC-9315 (including visible part of head) 3.3 mm. Body length of beetle ABAC 063 (including visible part of head) 3.5 mm. Even though the specimens are larger than the holotype, no morphological or significant differences were found, and the specimens are assigned to extinct E. gorskii.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207