MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967693575 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10166451

Chermes laricis Hartig 1839

2023· article· en· W6967693575 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomonym (biology)LarchTaxonomy (biology)Holotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chermes laricis Hartig, 1839 Chermes laricis Hartig, 1839: 644. SYNTYPES: 10 (field no. missing [3.16, 3.17]), Larix. Adelges laricis (Hartig, 1839) (change of combination— Schouteden, 1900: 138). Adelges laricis Vallot, 1836 (senior secondary homonym and synonym— Börner & Schilder, 1932: 688, “ A. laricis Vallot, Hartig ”; Börner, 1952: 207, “ Chermes laricis Htg. 1837, 1841 part.”). Valid Sacchiphantes viridis (Ratzeburg, 1843) (junior synonym—Börner, 1952: 208, “ Ch. Laricis Htg. 1841 part.”). Specimens. Seven alatae and three apterous progredientes mounted in situ on four and three larch needles, respectively, all on two pins. There are no labels corresponding to Hartig’s notes accompanying the specimens so their collection information cannot be determined. Remarks. Hartig (1839) also described material under the name “ Coccus laricis B[ouché]” but no specimens are labelled as such in his collection. Börner & Schilder (1932) recognized Chermes laricis Hartig, 1839 as a homonym of Adelges laricis Vallot, 1836. However, later Börner (1952) treated it in part with Sacchiphantes viridis [= Adelges viridis] (Ratzeburg, 1843), but never provided a justification for this. Investigation of the potential synonymy with A. viridis and confirmation of the synonymy with A. laricis are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.006

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicSpider Taxonomy and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207