MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893693046 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5058117

Pholetesor circumscriptus

2006· article· en· W6893693046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNearctic ecozoneCircumpolar starApantelesTaxonomy (biology)Sympatric speciationSeries (stratigraphy)Overwintering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pholetesor circumscriptus (Nees) (figs. 31, 58) Microgaster circumscriptus Nees, 1834. Hym. Ichn. aff. Mon. 1: 181. Microgaster umbellatarum Haliday, 1834. Ent. Mag. 2: 247­248. Microgaster blancardellae Bouche, 1834. Naturgeschichte der Insekten besonders in Hinsicht ihrer ersten Zustande als Larven und Puppen (Berlin). p. 156. Microgaster lividipes Wesmael, 1837. Nouv. Mem. Acad. Belg. 10: 63–64. Microgaster flavolimbatus Ratzeburg, 184&. Ichn. deutsche Forstins. 2: 50. Apanteles lautellus Marshall, 1885. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1885: 219–220. The above synonymy adapted from Wilkinson (1938). This apparently circumpolar species has been fully treated in the Palearctic Region by Wilkinson (1938), Nixon (1973) and Papp (1983b). I will not attempt to completely redescribe it here but instead attempt to characterize the nearctic series I associate with this name relative to examined palearctic material and to P. pedias. I have seen only 4 specimens, all non­reared females, from Alaska (Naknek) and in the Canadian National Collection, that I consider to be conspecific with the Palearctic P. cicumscriptus series I have seen. Of all European material examined (from England, Scotland, Netherlands, Sweden, Hungary, Northern Italy, Cyprus), the specimens from northern England and Scotland most closely resemble the Alaskan series in coloration and metasomal tergite shapes. Pholetesor circumscriptus appears to be an extremely variable species in the Old World, especially in leg and metasomal coloration. The following notes on the Alaskan series are provided for comparative purposes: flagellomere 2 3.6x longer than broad; flagellomere 14 1.7x as long as broad. Stigma twice as long as broad,.9 as long as metacarp (R1), pellucid centrally, darker grey­brown peripherally (especially posteriorly). Propodeum smooth, polished, with series of oblique fine ridges extending forward on either side from nucha. Tergite I of metasoma evenly narrowing posteriorly, 3.2–3.5x as long as posteriorly broad, twice broader anteriorly than posteriorly, smooth, polished except with fine longitudinal posterior aciculations; tergite II strongly triangular, 2.6x broader posteriorly than anteriorly, 1.6x broader posteriorly than medially long, entirely polished, smooth except faint peripheral sculpturing. Ovipositor sheaths slightly longer than hind basitarsi, just over half as long as hind tibiae. Body length 1.8–2.0 mm, forewing length 2.0– 2.3 mm. Coloration dark for the species: all coxae dark; hind femora mostly infuscate; tergites I and II entirely dark brown to black; laterotergites moderate yellow­brown. Short (1953) has examined the final instar larval head sclerites and reports that the labium has 7 pairs of setae, the maxillae each have 3 setae and the mandibles are each set with 12 long teeth (Short counted 13 but includes the upper tooth of the bifid tip). None of the Nearctic material is reared, so associated cocoons are not available; cocoons I have seen associated with Palearctic specimens are white, translucent, apparently not banded, smooth, elongate­oval, capsule­like and suspended by a thread from each end within the host mine or shelter (appearance very similar to cocoons of P. salalicus from oak leafminers.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.007

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.196
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 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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