Drusilla canaliculata Fabricius 1787
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Drusilla canaliculata (Fabricius, 1787) Staphylinus canaliculatus Fabricius, 1787: 221. Drusilla canaliculata: Leach in Samuelle, 1819: 177. Drusilla cavicollis Casey, 1906: 322. See Gusarov (2003) and Assing (2005a, 2005b) for further synonymies. Diagnosis. Drusilla canaliculata can be easily separated from D. nearctica and D. ashei by its larger body size (significantly greater than 3.6 mm) and the broadly emarginate apex of the eighth tergite with serrate margin. See: Casey (1906: 322) and Lohse (1974: 222–223) for descriptions; Assing (2006: 283) for habitus images (both sexes), apex of the eighth tergite (both sexes; females have a slightly more shallow emargination and lateral apices of emargination less produced), lateral view of the median lobe and spermatheca; Gusarov (2003: 112) for an illustration of the internal sac; Werner et al. (2007: 838) for a SEM of the copulatory piece and mechanism of sperm transfer. Discussion. The type material of Staphylinus canaliculatus Fabricius, 1787, was not examined in this study because this is a widespread, well-documented species. Possibly due to a combination of wide distribution and aptery (Assing 2005b), this species shows a range of subtle morphological variation and this may have contributed to the large number of synonyms. Distribution. In North America, D. canaliculata is known mainly from the northeastern United States and provinces of Canada, including: Alaska (Casey 1906; but most likely not established, Gusarov 2003), Kentucky (Gusarov 2003), Massachusetts (FMNH), New York (Seevers 1978, Muona 1984, Gusarov 2003; personal observations), Pennsylvania (Seevers 1978), Ontario (Gusarov 2003), Prince Edward Island (Majka & Klimaszewski 2008), and Quebec (Gusarov 2003).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".