MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912884634 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7398945

Chortoglyphus arcuatus

2022· article· en· W6912884634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDate Palm Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoppyShrimpSugar beetCaneCropSugar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chortoglyphus arcuatus (Troupeau, 1879) Distribution in Iran – West Azerbaijan Province: Region not mentioned, Mazandaran Province: Region not mentioned (Esmaili 1983; Faraji 1993b; Mirfakhraii 1994), Razavi Khorasan Province: Mashhad (Khaleghabadian et al. 2012), Guilan Province: Masal, Sowme'eh Sara, Rezvanshahr, Rice Research Institute of Iran, Anzali, Kuchesfahan, Fuman (Noei 2007; Noei and Ostovan 2012). General distribution – Barbados, Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Taiwan, Thailand, Wales (Hagstrum et al. 2013). Collection place(s) – Houses, rice barley, barley sweeping, bean curd, cereal, Chinese medicine, clover seed (red), dried fruit, dried vegetable, grain, grass seed, hay, herb, lentil, maize, malt, millet, mushroom, oat, poppy seed, potato flour, poultry mix, residue, rice, rice (husked), rye, shrimp (dried), soya sweeping, squid (dried), sugar beet seed, sweeping, sweetpotato chip (dried), wheat, wheat flour, wheat flour sweeping, stored rice, rice dust and debris (Esmaili 1983; Faraji 1993b; Mirfakhraii 1994; Modarres Awal 1994; Noei 2007; Noei and Ostovan 2012; Hagstrum et al. 2013).

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicDate Palm Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207