MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6931273535 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5253217

Platysmittia bilyji Saether

2012· article· en· W6931273535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSetaSTREAMSDeciduousLarvaDetritusMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Facultative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platysmittia bilyji Saether Figs 31A–D Diagnosis. Labrum as in Fig. 31A; SI seta serrated bifid; premandible with 2 apical teeth; antenna (Fig. 31B) apparently 6-segmented, last one difficult to discern, 3 rd segment. reduced, about half as long as 4 th, blade slightly longer than flagellum, AR 1.0 (see Notes); mandible (Fig. 31C) with 3 inner teeth; mentum (Fig. 31D) with two median teeth and 5 laterals, the last two are paired; VM plates arched posterolaterally; setae submenti located near base of mentum; upper anal tubules elongate conical directed posteriorly, lower tubules narrower, curled ventrally. Notes. Generally agrees with description given by Jacobsen (1998), except 6 th hair-like antennal segment could not be discerned. Antennal ratio is based on 5-segmented antenna. Ecology and habitat. Larvae have been recorded in small intermittent streams within deciduous forests on leafy detritus and are mainly facultative collector-gatherers (Jacobsen 1998). In study streams larvae were abundant in areas with leaf packs. Sampling sites. Little White River, Killarney, Arrowhead and Algonquin Provincial Parks and Muskoka District. Nearctic distribution. Canada: Manitoba, first Ontario record. USA: Maryland, Pennsylvania.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→