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

<i>55.1. Larentiinae – carpet moths</i> 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 <i>Eupithecia</i> in Hawaii are carnivorous on aphids and spiders. Th e Larentiinae includes a few forest pest species such as the winter moths (<i>Operophtera</i> 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 <i>Anticlea</i> (Rindge 1967), some <i>Dysstroma</i> (McDunnough 1946a), <i>Entephria</i> (Troubridge 1997), <i>Eubaphe</i> (Fletcher 1954), Canadian <i>Eupithecia</i> (Bolte 1990), some <i>Hydriomena</i> (McDunnough 1954), <i>Operophtera</i> (Troubridge and Fitzpatrick 1993), <i>Plemyria</i> (Choi 1998), and <i>Rheumaptera</i> (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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.011

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 head0.030
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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