MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6894047522 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7504657

Amiota oviraptor Jones & Grimaldi 2022, sp. nov.

2022· article· en· W6894047522 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiptera species taxonomy and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApex (geometry)AppendageAcute angleTrunkHead (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amiota oviraptor, sp. nov. Figures 52C–D, 53F–G, 58, 92B DIAGNOSIS: Large fly (ThL 1.56–1.66 mm), dark brown to black; outer paraphysis heavily sclerotized, in lateral view strongly sinuate, anterior portion curving dorsally, posterodorsal portion with 2 posterior facing spines, posteroventral region forming a strong laterally flattened “wing” (posteriorly pointed), the apex with a minute hook; inner paraphysis lost. DESCRIPTION: Large fly (ThL 1.56–1.66 mm), dark brown to black, legs yellow. Frons golden, pruinose. Facial marking large, depth 0.5× width. Cheek wide (EL/CW 11.14–12.5), milky white posteriorly. Palp dark brown. Haltere white. Tergites 1 and 2 lightly colored. Arista: Short, plumose; longest branch D3; A.R. 0.26; 4 longer dorsal, 2–3 short ventral branches; branch D4 pointed mediad; arista trunk with long microtrichia to apex. Male genitalia: Epandrium split medially, middle gap large, membranous; lower third with long setae; small projection anterolaterally. Cercus cylindrical, not grading into surrounding membrane; large membranous region dorsally. Surstylus squarish, ventral half densely covered with setulae; 13–14 short, peglike prensisetae, apices blunt; laterally with barely a lobe. Subepandrial sclerite sclerotized, C-shaped in lateral view, its broad section with muscle attachment scars; subepandrial appendage well developed, vaguely heart shaped in posterior view, apex with minute irregular serrations. Outer paraphysis heavily sclerotized; in lateral view strongly sinuate, anterior portion curving dorsally; posterodorsal portion with 2 posteriorfacing spines; posteroventral region forming a strong, laterally flattened “wing,” posteriorly pointed; apex with a very small, downward pointed hook. Inner paraphysis lost. Aedeagal apodeme roughly trapezoidal, curved nearly 90° in lateral view, width 1.25× length; posterior portion deeply constricted; distal end widely flared, with deep concave depression/emargination. Hypandrium U-shaped; lateral arms thick, winglike ventrally; lateral arm with a strong gonopod, posteriorly pointed. Ejaculatory apodeme relatively small, well sclerotized, 0.6× length of epandrium; flattened end nearly in line with stalk. Head and thorax measurements: (n = 2; Am 1506, 1529): FL/FW 0.69 (0.68–0.70), EL/EW 1.20 (1.18–1.22), EL/CW 11.82 (11.14–12.5), FML/FMW 0.36 (0.34–0.38), PR /RR 0.62 (0.54– 0.70), ThL 1.61 (1.56–1.66 mm). TYPE MATERIAL: Holotype: male: 14 mi. SW. El Salto, Dgo. [Durango] MEX., [23.786449, -105.597725], 8000′, June “9” 1964, J.F. McAlpine, Am 1529, [glued to pin, dissected]. Deposited in the Canadian National Collection (CNC). Paratype: 14 mi. SW. El Salto, Dgo. MEX., 8000′, June “26” 1964, J.F. McAlpine, attracted to man, [dissection lost], 1♂ (Am 1506*, CNC). OTHER MATERIAL EXAMINED: Known only from the type series. ETYMOLOGY: In reference to the lateral view of the fused paraphyses which resemble the “winglike” arm and head of an oviraptorid dinosaur and other birdlike dinosaurs. DISTRIBUTION: Amiota oviraptor is currently known only from the vicinity of the city of El Salto within Durango State in Mexico. COMMENTS: This species exhibits the characteristic behavior of attraction to the eyes and face common to many Amiota.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicDiptera species taxonomy and behaviorFrench-language works237,207