MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893856173 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5458732

Dichopygina perfecta

2018· article· en· W6893856173 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSetaApex (geometry)Bridge (graph theory)Groove (engineering)Malaise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dichopygina perfecta (Pettey, 1918) (Figs 2–6) Neosciara perfecta Pettey, 1918: 325, 341, figs 30, 61. Type locality: USA, Maryland, Montgomery Co., Plummers Island. Bradysia perfecta (Pettey, 1918): Stone & Laffoon, 1965: 234. Corynoptera perfecta (Pettey, 1918): Steffan, 1966: 49, 54. Dichopygina perfecta (Pettey, 1918): Mohrig et al., 2013: 200–201, fig. 28. Material examined. Canada. 1♂, New Brunswick, Fundy National Park, Devil`s Halfacre Road (45°35'22″N, 64°57' 20″W; elev. 61 m), 21 May 2013, leg. Shirley Butland (CNFDK107-14) (BIOG); 1♂, New Brunswick, Kouchibouguac National Park, Near Park Compound, behind Research House (46°46'15″N, 65°00'23″W; elev. 61m), malaise trap, 26 August 2013, leg. Bernard Martin (CNKOS809-14) (BIOG). Finland. 2♂, Lapland, Rovaniemi, Sorvanulkki, herb-rich, old-growth boreal forest, malaise trap, 28 July 2014, leg. Jukka Salmela (SCILA010-16, SCILA009-16) (BIOG). Diagnosis. The morphological differences between D. perfecta and D. bernhardi are hereby confirmed. The gonostylus of D. perfecta has almost equal 7–9 thin and straight subapical megasetae in one group, whereas D. bernhardi has 10–13 megasetae at the apical half of the gonostylus and the basalmost megasetae longer than others. In addition, the tegmen of D. perfecta is equally rounded, while it is flatter in D. bernhardi. Redescription. Colour. Thorax bright brown; abdomen, hypopygium brown; legs yellow; wing hyaline or slightly darkened. Antenna unicolour and yellowish brown. Head. Eye bridge 2–3 facets wide. Antennal setae fine, dense, shorter than segment width. Length/width of flagellomere 4 of antenna 1.40–1.80; transition of basal part to neck pronounced (Fig. 3). Neck length/segment width 0.30–0.40. Maxillary palpus bright and 3-segmented; basal segment with 1 bristles; 2nd segment short, oval; 3rd segment as long as basal segment; sensillae present. Thorax. Notum brown. Thoracic setae weak, white. Posterior pronotum bare. Mesothoracic sclerites bare. Wings (Fig. 4). Length 1.6–1.9 mm. bM, r-m bare; R 1/ R 0.60–0.80; c/w 0.63–0.72. Membrane without macrotrichia; venation weak, with faint stM; M-fork of normal shape; R 1 ending clearly before base of M-fork. Halter bright. Legs. Foretibia with dense patch of setae and curved margin; claws untoothed. Hind coxa of same colour as femora. Hind tibia 0.80–0.90 mm; Tibial spurs of equal length. Abdomen. Abdominal setae weak, sparse. Tergal setae white; sternal setae white. Hypopygium (Fig. 5). Hypopygium 0.5–0.7 times as long as wide. Base of gonocoxites with normal, weak hairs; gonocoxites narrowly separated; inner margin of gonocoxites U-shaped; inner membrane of hypopygium bare; gonostylus elongate, narrowed and curved (Fig. 2); 1.1–1.5 times longer than wide; inner margin straight, or concave in ventral view; apical part of gonostylus tapered. Apical tooth without internal structure, shorter than subapical megasetae; 1.1–1.7 times longer than broad. Awl-like setae absent. Innerside of gonostylus with 7–9 thin and straight subapical megasetae in one group. Position of basalmost megaseta 55–67% from apex. Whiplash-hair absent. Tegmen 0.6–0.7 times as long as broad; equally rounded; without special structures; central process absent (Fig. 6). Aeadeagal apical structure and teeth absent. Remarks. The species is firstly recorded in Finland and Canada. Distribution. Finland, Canada, USA (Mohrig et al., 2013).

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207