MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931167613 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3789245

Larentiinae Duponchel 1845

2010· article· en· W6931167613 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCanadian Food Inspection AgencyRoyal Alberta MuseumCalgary Laboratory ServicesNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPEST analysisSubfamilyLarvaTaxonomy (biology)Temperate climate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

55.1. Larentiinae – carpet moths Medium-sized moths (approximately 15–35 mm wingspan) with complex patterns of transverse bands. Th ey can be separated from other geometrids by wing venation: on the hindwing, the Sc + R 1 veins are fused with the Rs vein for more than one-quarter the length of the discal cell. No other easily observable characters define the group. Larvae of most species feed on the foliage of trees; a few species of Eupithecia in Hawaii are carnivorous on aphids and spiders. Th e Larentiinae includes a few forest pest species such as the winter moths (Operophtera spp.). Approximately 5700 species of Larentiinae are known worldwide, primarily from temperate regions. Approximately 470 species occur in North America; 137 are known from AB. Th is subfamily is in need of taxonomic work, and many specimens in collections have not been adequately identified because of the diffi culty in making species determinations. Some groups are reasonably well known, including Anticlea (Rindge 1967), some Dysstroma (McDunnough 1946a), Entephria (Troubridge 1997), Eubaphe (Fletcher 1954), Canadian Eupithecia (Bolte 1990), some Hydriomena (McDunnough 1954), Operophtera (Troubridge and Fitzpatrick 1993), Plemyria (Choi 1998), and Rheumaptera (Skou 1986). McGuffi n (1958b) treated the known larvae.

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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1110.043

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207