Tanytarsus oscillans Johannsen 1932
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tanytarsus oscillans Johannsen, 1932 Tanytarsus oscillans Johannsen, 1932: Ekrem 2002: 24 (male, figs 34, 35; Indonesia; = Tanytarsus cultellus Chaudhuri et Datta, 1992, = Tanytarsus sibafegeus Sasa, Sumita et Suzuki, 1999). Material examined. Kaesŏng, 16 July 1981, 4 males; Sokam, 8 July 1981, 3 males; leg. W. Krzemiński. Comparative material. Tanytarsus smolandicus: Sweden, Nedre Dalälven, 11 August 2003, 1 male, Storsjön, 18 July 2003, 20 males; leg. W. Giłka. Remarks. Ekrem (2002) redescribed the male of Tanytarsus oscillans based on the holotype specimen. In remarks on its close relatives, T. smolandicus Brundin, 1947 (terra typica in Sweden) and T. unagiseptimus Sasa, 1985 (Japan), selected diagnostic characters were indicated to separate these species. It seems, however, that these features (number of median setae, length of frontal tubercles, AR value, presence/absence of microtrichia between anal point crests and slight differences in shape of inferior volsella), in part at least, may be within the morphological variability of T. oscillans and/or T. smolandicus. According to the concept by Lin et. al. (2018b), T. oscillans and T. unagiseptimus are sister species (not ascribed to any group analyzed) while T. smolandicus has not been included. Interestingly, a concept of possible synonymy between the abovementioned names has been raised recently, when DNA sequences from specimens sampled in Fennoscandia and Japan, determined as T. oscillans or T. unagiseptimus, have been compared that resulted in ~97–98% of DNA sequence compatibility (Paasivirta, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, our specimens collected decades ago (kept in denatured ethanol or slide-mounted in Canada balsam) do not give a chance to be analyzed molecularly for supporting this concept.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.274 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".