MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6911411496 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10592491

Lasioglossum Curtis 1833

2024· article· en· W6911411496 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScutellumPedicelDorsumHead (geology)Lobe

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key to Lasioglossum subgenera in North America Modified from McGinley (1986), Michener (2007), and Gibbs et al. (2013). 1. Second submarginal crossvein (1rs-m) as strong as first (second abscissa of Rs) (Fig. 16A), difficult to see in male; head and mesosoma black, except L. pavonotus (Cockerell); male clypeus often flat or depressed ventrally; flagellomere 2 subequal to pedicel and flagellomere 1 combined (Fig. 17A); body length usually greater (approx. 7–12 mm)..................... 2 - Second submarginal crossvein (1rs-m) weaker than first (second abscissa of Rs) (Fig. 16B), at least in female; head and mesosoma variable in colour; male clypeus often rounded; flagellomere variable, if black and moderately large (> 6 mm), then flagellomere 2 longer than pedicel and flagellomere 1 combined (Fig. 17B)....................................... 3 2. Propodeum with lateral carina well developed, reaching dorsal surface (Fig. 18A); dorsal surface coarsely sculptured, shorter than scutellum (Fig. 18A); T1 without basal hair band (Fig. 18A); head long (length/width ratio = 0.88–1.0) (Fig. 19A); male gonostylus without retrorse lobe (Fig. 20A)................................................... L. (Leuchalictus) - Propodeum with lateral carina usually poorly developed, not reaching dorsal surface (Fig. 18B), but if strong (Figs. 18C, 18D) then dorsal surface longer than scutellum (Fig. 18C) or weakly sculptured (Fig. 18C) or T1 with basal hair band or head short (Fig. 18D) (length/width ratio = 0.77–0.89) (Fig. 19B); male gonostylus with retrorse lobe (Fig. 20B).... L. (Lasioglossum) 3(1). Head and mesosoma distinctly metallic (green, blue, or golden)................................................ 4 - Head and mesosoma black-brown, at most with weak reflections............................................... 6 4. Head and mesosoma brilliant metallic (Antillean, southern Florida); male inner metatibial spur typically pectinate; male gonostylus without retrorse lobe........................................................... L. (Habralictellus) - Head and mesosoma dull metallic; male inner metatibial spur ciliate; male gonostylus with retrorse lobe................ 5 5. Body size usually small (3.5–6 mm); female T1 usually with appressed hairs at least laterally (Fig. 21A) in North American species (except L. ruidosense and L. petrellum (Cockerell) species complexes, L. microlepoides (Ellis), L. pavoninum (Ellis)), typically lacking erect hairs medially; female mandible almost always with small preapical tooth (Fig. 21B), except in the wood-nesting L. coeruleum (Robertson)) (cosmopolitan)............................................ L. (Dialictus) - Body size usually larger (6–8 mm); female T1 without appressed hairs, medially with distinct erect hairs (Fig. 22A); female mandible often strongly bidentate (Fig. 22B), if preapical tooth small, then propodeum with distinct lateral carina reaching dorsal margin (primarily from Panama to Mexico, except L. aquilae, which reaches to high elevation areas in the southwestern USA)................................................................................ L. (Eickwortia s.l.) 6 (3). Head wide (Fig. 23A); female inner metatibial spur with fine oblique teeth, not as tall as width of main rachis (Fig. 23A); male gonostylus without retrorse lobe; metasomal sterna with erect pubescence.............................. L. (Evylaeus) - Head usually longer (Fig. 23B); female inner metatibial spur usually with longer, narrow or fat teeth, often taller than width of main rachis basally (Fig. 24B); male gonostylus with retrorse lobe; metasomal sterna with variable pubescence.......... 7 7. Foretibia of female with long projection (Fig. 25A); metapostnotum enclosed by carina, with distinct parallel carinulae (Fig. 26A); frons with two bulbous protuberances (Fig. 26B); retrorse lobe absent (Neotropical)....................................................................... L. gattaca complex (L. gattaca and L. hartmanni Danforth and Wcislo) - Foretibia of female without long projection (Fig. 25B); metapostnotum not as above; retrorse lobe present (widespread)... 8 8. Female mandible strongly bidentate (Fig. 27), subapical tooth nearly equal to apical one; male metasoma with entirely paleorange sterna; gonobase at middorsum less than one-fourth length of gonocoxite; T1 narrow or apex of clypeus distinctly thick (Mexico and Central America)........................................................... L. (Eickwortia s.s.) - Female mandible with small preapical tooth dorsally; male gonobase at middorsum usually more than one-third length of gonocoxite.......................................................................................... 9 9. Either propodeum with weak lateral carina and fully developed scopa (Figs. 28A, 28B) or mesosoma coarsely sculptured on pleuron and carina appearing to reach dorsal surface (Figs. 28C, 28D); male metasomal sterna with erect pubescence; male antennae usually relatively short; male heads sometimes enlarged with long mandibles (Fig. 28E)....... L. (Hemihalictus) - Either propodeum with weak lateral carina and highly modified reduced scopa (Figs. 29A, 29B) or mesosoma weakly rugose at most and propodeum with complete carina (Figs. 29C, 29D); male metasomal sterna nearly bare, except in Onagraceae specialists; male antennae relatively long (Fig. 4C); male heads not enlarged (Fig. 4B).............. L. (Sphecodogastra)

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.009

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207