MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6912274109 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15218372

Empis (Enoplempis) mariposa Sinclair, Brooks & Cumming, 2025, sp. nov.

2025· article· en· W6912274109 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeFemurSetaKeelDorsumThorax (insect anatomy)Lobe

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empis (Enoplempis) mariposa sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 221C7D82-B050-4476-9E97-6986AF749F3F (Figs 135–137, 142, 152) Type material. HOLOTYPE ♂, labelled: “[USA] El Portal [37°40′N 119°47′W]/ Mariposa Co. Cal. / IV.16.61.2200ft”; “ J.W. Tilden / Collector”; “ALMelander/ Collection/ 1961”; “ HOLOTYPE / Empis (Enoplempis) / mariposa Sinclair,/ Brooks & Cumming [red label]” (USNM). PARATYPES: USA. California: Same data as holotype (1♂, USNM). Diagnosis. This species is distinguished from E. (En.) clava sp. nov. by the absence of long, thickened, wavy posterior preapical setae on the male hind femur (Figs 135–137), apparent absence of brown vittae on the scutum and the closely approximated male eyes. Description. Wing length 4.1 mm. Male. Similar to E. (En.) clava sp. nov., except as follows: head with eyes closely approximated, nearly holoptic. Thorax without distinct vittae, mostly dark with dense grey pruinescence. Legs short, fore and midlegs slender, hindleg stocky, reddish brown, with apical tarsomeres darker; coxae with faint grey pruinescence. Hind femur strongly expanded apically, with long, pale, slender ventral setae, slightly shorter than width of femur; preapex expanded with wedge-shaped anteroventral expansion, bearing short, strong apical setae and nipple-like projection on inner edge; preapical posterior face with distinct swelling, bearing horizontal row of 5 thickened, wavy setae, shorter than width of femur; short, spine-like seta dorsal to row of posterior setae; nipple-like lobe on inner margin of posterior swelling (Figs 135–137). Hind tibia with base narrowed and geniculate; base laterally expanded and flattened opposite concave area on femur [apex of lobes obscured by femur]; 3–4 erect anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae, slightly longer than width of tibia, with erect pale setae on all faces of tibia (Figs 135, 137). Hind tarsus with tarsomere 1 slightly swollen; tarsomeres 1–3 with biserial row of strong ventral setae; tarsomeres 1–4 with apicolateral pair of strong setae, longer than width of segment. Abdomen darker than thorax, shiny; setae pale. Terminalia (Fig. 142): cercus linear, tapered to narrow apex, shorter than epandrium; dorsal margin sculptured; setae slender, shorter than width of cercus. Subepandrial process broad, with narrow, tapered apex; extending to either side of phallus. Epandrial lamella linear, posterior margin broadly truncate, not expanded dorsally; not fused with cercus anteriorly; evenly clothed in slender setae, shorter than width of epandrium. Hypandrium short, apical margin truncate, with several short setae. Phallus sharply bent at base; basal portion broad, gradually tapered; gently curved at subapical section; apical opening with several lateral spicules; apex emerging beyond cerci; ejaculatory apodeme one-half length of epandrium, T-shaped, with lateral apodemes near lower margin. Female. Unknown. Geographical distribution and seasonal occurrence (Fig. 152). This species is known only from April at the type locality in Mariposa County, California. Etymology. The species name is in reference to the type locality, Mariposa County, California and is a noun in apposition. Nuptial gift presentation. Form unknown.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.009

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.219
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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy→French-language works237,207→