MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6949862631 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5253131

Meropelopia americana

2012· article· en· W6949862631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSetaSensillumMorphometricsSystematicsLarvaTaxonomy (biology)Dorsum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meropelopia americana (Fittkau) Figs 3A–F Diagnosis. Head yellowish, with pale brown posterior margin, gular sclerite not discernible; maxillary palp (Fig. 3A) with 2-segmented sensillum b; basal antennal segment 358–398 µm long, 2.0x as long as mandible, AR 4.6–4.9, flagellum as in Fig. 3B; mandible (Fig. 3C) with small accessory tooth; pseudoradula (Fig. 3D) parallelsided with about 10 rows of fine granules grading to coarser ones towards base, no wavy lines; ligula (Fig. 3E) with strongly concave toothed margin, inner laterals slightly out-turned; ventral cephalic setae and VP as in Fig. 3F; body with scattered setae about as long as subtending segment. Notes. The only character separating Meropelopia from Thienemannimyia and Hayesomyia is the higher A1/M ratio. The pigmentation of posterior margin of head capsule used in Epler’s (2001) key was found to be unreliable in separating the above genera. The morphometrics used in Roback (1981) to separate the two Meropelopia species does appear to hold up with M. americana being the larger of the two. Another distinguishing character is the form of the psudoradula as described for each species. Pupae collected were also identified by the presence of well developed mesonotal tubercle (absent in the adult) and long lanceolate setae on abdominal segments V–VIII. It is surprisingly similar to Conchapelopia rurika Roback, but the latter doesn’t have the developed mesonotal tubercle. Ecology and habitat. The species has been reported to occur in streams with pH 4.1–7.0 (X = 5.64) and water temperature of 9–18 °C (X = 15.9°C) (Roback 1981). Larvae were common in all habitats of the study streams but mainly occurred in moss and leaf packs. Sampling sites. We found the larvae inhabiting streams in all the provincial parks and districts located in our study area. Nearctic distribution. First published record for Canada: Ontario. USA: Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicDiatoms and Algae Research→French-language works237,207→