MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968128025 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14597316

Xenopolynema Ogloblin 1960

2024· article· en· W6968128025 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransverse planeSulcusAnterior surfaceCadaverOblique case

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

XENOPOLYNEMA Ogloblin, 1960 (Figs 345–349) Xenopolynema Ogloblin, 1960a: 9. Type species: Xenopolynema areolatum Ogloblin, 1960, by original designation. Diagnosis. Face without subantennal sulcus ventral to each torulus, with a pit medially next to each torulus and toruli separated by about their own height from transverse trabecula (Fig. 345a); propleura widely abutting medially anterior to prosternum; fore wing with a narrow dark transverse band posterior to venation; parastigma lengthened, slightly separated from anterior margin of wing, and marginal vein apparently absent (Fig. 347); propodeum submedially with 2 curved carina meeting dorsally, forming an oval median area (Fig. 348); petiole attached posteriorly to gs 1 (Fig. 349). Remarks. Xenopolynema belongs to the Polynema group of genera. Among the Neotropical genera, Xenopolynema appears superficially to be most similar to Vladimir based on the more or less lengthened parastigma (+ marginal vein, when present) + stigmal veins and the dark transverse band posterior to these but instead is most similar to the Australasian genus Boccacciomymar Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy. Neotropical hosts. Unknown. Important reference. Ogloblin (1960a).

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207