MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6912615580 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6112709

Prochyliza brevicornis

2015· article· en· W6912615580 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubarctic climateSpecies richnessArcticRange (aeronautics)Abundance (ecology)Biodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prochyliza brevicornis Melander NBP/NIS material examined. 13 ♂, 7 ♀ from Manitoba: Churchill (vi–vii.1962; vii–viii.1961; vi.1967; vii.1969) (CNC). Comments. Prochyliza brevicornis is a widespread Nearctic species (Melander 1924; Steyskal 1965; McAlpine 1977). The NIS specimens extend the known range of P. brevicornis northeast. Diversity and distribution patterns A total of 960 specimens was collected by the NBP and NIS at the 12 sites in the boreal, subarctic and high arctic ecozones. There were distinct latitudinal patterns in diversity across the three ecozones (Fig. 12). Abundance and species richness of Piophilidae were lowest in the boreal sites. Only 13 specimens representing five species were collected (Liopiophila varipes, Parapiophila atrifrons, P. dudai, P. penicillata, P. xanthopoda). All species collected in the boreal were also collected in the subarctic (Fig. 12). In contrast, species richness of Piophilidae was highest at the subarctic sites. All but one species (Arctopiophila nigerrima) were collected in the subarctic ecozone. Some species collected in multiple ecozones were much more abundant in the subarctic sites (e.g., Liopiophila varipes, Neopiophila setaluna, Parapiophila penicillata) (Fig. 12). Although Actenoptera hilarella was collected only in subarctic sites in this study, published records (McAlpine 1977) show that it is more widespread in the Nearctic, although rarely collected. Piophilidae were most abundant at the high arctic sites (701 specimens), but species richness was low. Five species were collected: Arctopiophila arctica, Arctopiophila nigerrima, Lasiopiophila pilosa, Neopiophila setaluna and Parapiophila fulviceps. Arctopiophila nigerrima was collected only at high arctic sites and A. arctica, L. pilosa and P. fulviceps were much more abundant at high arctic than subarctic sites (Fig. 12). The dominance of these species in the high arctic suggests that they may be particularly well-adapted to the harsh conditions on the arctic islands (Downes 1962; McAlpine 1965), although a better understanding of their ecology would be required to identify those adaptations. Half of the recorded Nearctic species of Piophilidae were identified in the 12 sites sampled in this study, including a new, widespread Holarctic species, and two new North American records. We are aware of additional, undescribed species from other northern sites. A taxonomic revision of Nearctic Piophilidae is ongoing, which will allow for a more comprehensive analysis of geographic patterns of diversity.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicMarine Biology and Ecology Research→French-language works237,207→