Figure 1 from: Fisher JR, Fisher DM, Skvarla MJ, Nelson WA, Dowling APG (2017) Revision of torrent mites (Parasitengona, Torrenticolidae, Torrenticola) of the United States and Canada: 90 descriptions, molecular phylogenetics, and a key to species. ZooKeys 701: 1-496. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.701.13261
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Figure 1 - \n Diversity of Torrenticola in Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Species from top-left to bottom-right: T. irapalpa sp. n., T. interiorensis sp. n., T. biscutella sp. n. female, T. biscutella sp. n. male, T. pearsoni sp. n., T. trimaculata Fisher & Dowling 2016, T. unimaculata sp. n., T. larvata Cherri et al. 2016, T. solisorta sp. n. Note that, for a given locality, many characters necessary for identification can be seen under low magnification. For example, species in the bottom row can be readily differentiated using color pattern. In contrast, species in the top row have similar color patterns; however, even they can be readily identified: T. irapalpa have dorsal glandularia (Dgl-4) closer together than the other species and T. biscutella have fused anterio-lateral platelets and strong sexual dimorphism (neither character is present in T. interiorensis). Only the identification of T. interiorensis is tentative based on this image, because T. neoanomala (not pictured), which are also found in this locality, can only be differentiated from T. interiorensis by comparing precise measurements of the anterio-lateral platelets, necessitating examining slide-prepared material under higher magnification. Also, note that some species can appear differently than what is depicted in species descriptions. For example, although T. pearsoni sp. n. has a nearly colorless cuticle, it can appear dark due to gut contents, as shown here. Image is a composite of stacked images from a Samsung GS7 and edited in Adobe Photoshop.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.865 | 0.667 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".