MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6950266536 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6313362

Cybaeus somesbar Bennett 2009

2022· article· en· W6950266536 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsImmunoPrecise (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeType localityLower limbAdult maleMeristics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybaeus somesbar Bennett Figs 33–36, 40–42, 49 Cybaeus somesbar Bennett in Copley et al. 2009: 393, figs 99–101, 113. World Spider Catalog 2021. Type material examined. U.S.A.: California: Holotype female. Siskiyou County, 1 mile south of Somes Bar, 22.viii.1959, V. D. Roth & W.J. Gertsch (AMNH). Paratypes. Specimens and locality data in Copley et al. 2009. Other material examined. U.S.A.: California: Humboldt. 1♂, Slide Creek, 7.4 mi. W of Hwy. 96, Six Rivers National Forest, 2400′, 9.ix.1992, D. Ubick & J. Boutin (CAS). One other non-paratype specimen and its locality data are in Copley et al. 2009. Diagnosis. The male of C. somesbar is unlikely to be confused with any of the known males of the other species in the septatus group. It is distinguished from the male of C. viator spec. nov. by the slightly angular but rounded profile of its patellar apophysis (Fig. 34), the angular truncated tip of the distal arm of the tegular apophysis and the strongly concave posterior margin of the proximal arm of the tegular apophysis (Figs 35–36) (versus in the male of C. viator spec. nov. the patellar apophysis has a strongly angular profile [Figs 43–44, 47], the tip of the distal arm of the tegular apophysis is rounded, and the posterior margin of the proximal arm is angular [Figs 45, 48]). Separating the male of C. somesbar from those of C. chauliodous and C. septatus is discussed in the diagnoses of those two species. The female of C. somesbar is unique among septatus group females in having long convoluted spermathecal stalks which make three 180° bends between the spermathecal heads and bases (Figs 41–42). It shares very small inconspicuous atrial openings (Fig. 40) with the female of C. viator spec. nov. (Fig. 37) but the spermathecal stalks in that species are very short and almost linear (Figs 38–39). Distinguishing the female of C. somesbar from those of C. chauliodous, C. lockeae spec. nov., and C. septatus is discussed in the diagnoses of those three species. Description. As in diagnosis. Other descriptive characters are presented here. Ventral tibia I macrosetae 2–1p– 2–1p–1p(or 0, or 2). Femora unbanded in females, very lightly banded ventrally in the single known male. Male (n=1). Patellar apophysis (Figs 33–34) antero-prolaterally directed, length about equal to width of palpal patella, with solitary large medially located peg seta isolated from three setae arranged around the tip of the apophysis. Embolus (Figs 35–36) very thin, describing a simple curve. Tip of proximal arm of tegular apophysis (Figs 35–36) sharply acuminate in ventral view, angular in retrolateral view Measurements (n=1). CL 2.28; CW 1.58; SL 1.14; SW 1.09. Note: We have associated the Slide Creek male with the previously described females of C. somesbar because it was collected in the same general area as the other California specimens, only 20 to 50 km separate the Slide Creek locality from the other California localities for this species, and no other species of Cybaeus in the area is known only from females. Female: See Copley et al. 2009. Distribution and natural history. (Fig. 49) Northwestern California (Klamath Mountains and lower Klamath/Salmon Rivers drainage) and adjacent southwestern Oregon. Apparently absent from the coast. The single male was collected in September.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.013

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes→French-language works237,207→