MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968062194 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15707491

Dysagrionites Archibald and Cannings

2024· article· en· W6968062194 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonSubfamilyNomenclatureGenusCharacter (mathematics)Taxonomy (biology)Fossil Record

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

collective genus Dysagrionites Archibald and Cannings Figure 1 Remarks. Archibald and Cannings (Archibald et al. 2021) created the genus-level collective taxon Dysagrionites to function as a holding bin for fossil odonates referrable to the Dysagrioninae (Cephalozygoptera, Dysagrionidae) that can be clearly separated from species of that subfamily but whose nominal generic affinity is unclear by the preservation and completeness of their currently known specimens. Collective taxa are regulated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999, for example, articles 42.2.1 and 42.3.1). Archibald et al. (2021) referred three species to the parataxon: Dysagrionites delinei Archibald and Cannings and Dysagrionites sp. A and Dysagrionites sp. B. They erred, however, in that the parataxon definition required that those species are established as members of the Dysagrioninae, and although this strongly appears to be the case, these fragmentary fossils lack enough of the character states that, in combination, firmly place them in the family and, therefore, in this subfamily. Simonsen et al. (2024) subsequently established a diagnosis of Dysagrionidae using wings alone; however, known specimens of Dysagrionites species still lack sufficient morphology for confirmation. We emend the collective taxon definition by adding “or tentatively so”: This genus-level collective group name is proposed for any fossil species referable to the Dysagrioninae, or tentatively so, that can be clearly defined at the species level, separating them from other species of the subfamily, but whose orthotaxon generic affinity is unclear by the incomplete preservation of its currently known specimens. Dysagrionites then includes these three species and D. allenbyensis, described here. If our assumption that D. allenbyensis is a dysagrionid is correct, it belongs to the Dysagrioninae, as the origin of its RP3–4 is about two-thirds the distance between the arculus and nodus and IR2 originates at the subnodus [Petrolestinae: RP3–4 originates more proximally, closer to, or at, the point midway between the arculus and subnodus, and IR2 originates close to, or on, RP3–4; subfamily diagnoses were summarised by Archibald et al. 2021]. Allenbya holmesae Archibald and Cannings is the only previously known non-anisopteran odonate from the Allenby Formation. It is also tentatively treated as a dysagrionid and cephalozygopteran but is distinct enough to be assigned to a nominal genus (Archibald and Cannings 2022). It is also a fragmentary wing, but in this case, the distal portion is preserved. It is distinct from D. allenbyensis; for example, IR1 is zigzagged, and the postnodal and postsubnodal crossveins are not aligned.

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 categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207