MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912541847 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5122998

Hirtea Fabricius 1798

2014· article· en· W6912541847 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiptera species taxonomy and behavior
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomonym (biology)SciaridaeNomenclatureCecidomyiidaeSynonym (taxonomy)Taxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hirtea Fabricius, 1798: 547, 551. Type species: Tipula marci Linnaeus, 1758 (cited by Fabricius in synonymy with Tipula hortulana Linnaeus, 1758, the 2nd of 13 originally included species), by subsequent designation of Zetterstedt (1850: 3368). Junior homonym of Hirtea Scopoli, 1763. Junior subjective synonym of Bibio Geoffroy, 1762 (type species: Tipula hortulana Linnaeus, 1758) (Bibionidae). Remarks. Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 was originally proposed for a species of the family Stratiomyidae. Fabricius (1798) made his own proposal of the name Hirtea for 13 species belonging to the families Bibionidae (8), Sciaridae (2), Cecidomyiidae (1), Scatopsidae (1) and Therevidae (1). In his final classification, Fabricius (1805) included in Hirtea 14 Bibionidae, 1 Sciaridae and 1 Therevidae. Fabricius’s usage of the name Hirtea for bibionid flies became widely accepted in the pre-1850 literature (J.W. Meigen, G.W.F. Panzer, J.W. Zetterstedt, etc.), but was gradually replaced by the older name Bibio Geoffroy, 1762. Incidentally, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1957: 88) placed Hirtea Fabricius, 1798 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Name No. 840).

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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.011

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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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