MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967883752 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10166450

Rhizoterus vacca Hartig 1841

2023· article· en· W6967883752 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenusTaxonomy (biology)Identity (music)Key (lock)Aphid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rhizoterus vacca Hartig, 1841 Rhizoterus vacca Hartig, 1841: 363. HOLOTYPE: (1244 [3.02]). Forda formicaria von Heyden, 1837 (senior synonym— Kaltenbach, 1843: 209). Valid Specimen. One aptera mounted on a point. A second point on the same pin has a damaged specimen (possibly Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761 see below). Collected from anthills and ants into alcohol by Wilhelm Saxesen in April 1839 from an unknown location. Remarks. There is some uncertainty around the identity of the aphid specimen. The antennae of this species were illustrated in Hartig (1841, Fig. 13) and therein depicted in a manner consistent with the current use of the name Forda formicaria von Heyden, 1837 in that they are five segmented with the third segment similar in length to the fourth and fifth combined. However, high resolution photographs of specimen 1244 show what appears to be six-segmented antennae with antennal segment III of similar length to IV. Given the contradictory information, the identity of the specimen remains uncertain. If not F. formicaria it may be that the specimen instead represents a species in the genus Paracletus von Heyden, 1837 which have six segmented antennae but otherwise resemble F. formicaria. Confirmation of the synonymy is needed. Hartig’s notes indicate that the genus was believed to be Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835 [= Prociphilus Koch, 1857], and are consistent with Hartig’s (1841) description which indicates that the specimen was collected together with F. rufa by Saxesen and resembled Rhizobius pini Burmeister, 1835.

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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.014

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207