MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968283457 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14278181

Calyxochaetus fortunatus

2024· article· en· W6968283457 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine Biology and Environmental Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDitchCurranClass (philosophy)Type (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calyxochaetus fortunatus (Wheeler) (Figs 2, 78, 83, 89, 94) Nothosympycnus fortunatus Wheeler, 1899: 52. Calyxochaetus fortunatus: Parent (1930: 107). Type material examined. HOLOTYPE ♂, labeled: “ Natrona,/ 8.1.93 Pa.”; “Type” (AMNH). Other material examined. CANADA: Ontario: Orillia, 15.vii.1923, C.H. Curran (3♂, CNC; 1♂, USNM); Ottawa, 17.vi.1955, J.G. Chillcott (2♂, 1♀, CNC); same data except, 20.viii.1991, damp shaded ditch in Acer wood, J.R. Vockeroth (4♂, CNC); same data except, 28.viii.1991 (2♂, CNC); same data except, 31.viii.1991 (1♂, 2♀, CNC); Niagara Glen, 1.viii.1957, J.R. Vockeroth (1♀, CNC); Algoma District, Whiskey Bay, 24.vii.1988, RLH (3♂, 3♀, MTEC); same data except, 3.viii.1991 (1♂, 6♀, MTEC); same data except, 6.viii.1991 (1♂, 8♀, MTEC). New Brunswick: St. Andrews, 8.viii.1957, G.E. Shewell (1♂, 2♀, CNC); 8 mi. W Hillsborough, 26.vii.1991 (1♂, 5♀, MTEC). Quebec: Wakefield, 30.viii.1959, J.R. Vockeroth (1♀, CNC); Old Chelsea, 31.viii.1958, J.R. Vockeroth (1♂, CNC); same data except, 5.ix.1963 (1♂, CNC); Knowlton Lodge, 18–19.vii.1968, J.R. Vockeroth (3♂, 1♀, CNC); Lac Phillipe, 23.vii.1987, J.R. Vockeroth (1♂, CNC); same data except, 25.vii.1987 (1♂, CNC). USA: Connecticut: Litchfield County: Lake Waramaug, 23.vii.1923, ALM (1♂, USNM). Indiana: Parke County: Turkey Run, 27.vi.1933, ALM (1♂, USNM). Iowa: Allamakee County: 3 mi NW Lansing, 6.viii.2002, RLH (5♀, MTEC). Massachusetts: Berkshire County: Pittsfield, Springside Park, 366 m, 14.vii.2005, JBR & C. Delphia (3♂, 3♀, MTEC); Worcester County: Petersham, vii.1926, ALM (3♂, USNM). Michigan: Alcona County: McGillis Creek, 8 mi. W Mikado, 9.viii.1991, RLH (3♂, 1♀, MTEC); Alger County: Munising, 28.vii.1974, FCH (1♂, FSCA); Munising, Wagner Falls, 8.viii.1993, RLH (1♂, 4♀, MTEC); Houghton County: Sidnaw, 27.vii.1974, FCH (1♂, FSCA); Mason County: Scottville, 15.vii.1943, C.W. Sabrosky (1♂, USNM). New York: Tompkins County: Ithaca, 28.viii.1894 (1♂, FSCA). Ohio: Geauga County: Novelty Township, Chagrin River, 6.viii.1982, R.S. Zack (1♂, WSU). Pennsylvania: Huntingdon County: Perez Lake, 31.viii.2003, JBR (1♀, MTEC); same data except, 3.vii.2004 (1♂, MTEC); Shaver Creek, N40°42.084′ W77°53.243′, 24.vii.2006, JBR (2♂, MTEC); Luzerne County: Hazleton, viii.1930, Dietz (1♂, FSCA); Venango County: Richey Run, 0.5 mi E Emlenton, 23.viii.2003, JBR (1♂, 2♀, MTEC); Westmoreland County: (1♂, FSCA). Wisconsin: Adams County: Witch’s Creek, Dell Prairie, 24.viii.1984, RLH (1♂, 3♀, MTEC). Virginia: Dickenson County: Lick Branch, 2.5 mi E Clintwood, N37°09.50′ W82°24.15′, 11.vii.2008, JBR (2♂, 2♀, MTEC); Ramsey Fork, 3 mi. N Clintwood, 15.viii.2008, JBR (1♀, MTEC). Diagnosis. Males can be recognized by the strongly swollen fore tibia (Fig. 83), posterior margin of the wing with a large lobe (Fig. 89), pleura yellow ventrally, and the shape of the arista-like stylus (Fig. 78). Redescription. Male. Wing length 3.2–3.5 mm. Head: Frons with glabrous shiny blue-violet spot on either side of ocellar tubercle. Eyes broadly contiguous below antenna, face reduced to silver-white triangle below antennae; clypeus small, narrow, recessed silver-white triangle above palpus. Antenna (Fig. 78) brown, scape yellow-brown; scape laterally flattened, flared apically, shorter than postpedicel; postpedicel elongate oval, length variable but usually about 2X as long as wide; arista-like stylus with dense microtrichia, becoming gradually thicker throughout (at thickest, subequal to width of scape), apex rounded to weakly pointed; article 1 varying from one-quarter to one-half length of article 2. Palpus small, oval, brown with white apex. Thorax: Scutum with thick brown pruinosity, often yellowish above wing base. Postpronotal lobe and anterior notopleuron partly yellowish. Proepisternum mostly yellow. Pleura dorsally brown with gray pruinosity (appearing bluish), becoming yellow on ventral half especially along sutures, anepisternum usually with weak metallic green reflections; metepimeron wholly yellow. Legs: Foreleg (Fig. 83): Light yellow, except tarsus light brown from near middle of tarsomere 2. Tibia strongly swollen, narrowest at base and broadest subapically, with small slender posterodorsal seta at 1/3. Tarsomere 1 very short, about as long as wide. Tarsomere 2 with distally directed anterior seta at apex. Tarsomere 3 slightly bowed with apex broadened, with denser dorsal microsetulae on apical half. Tarsomere 4 with denser dorsal microsetulae. Midleg: Yellow, except tarsus brown from apical third of tarsomere 1. Femur with very short, slender, yellow ventral setae on basal half (longest about half femur width), with cluster of 2–4 small erect ventral preapical setae (apical-most seta largest). Tarsus similar to C. vegetus (Fig. 87) except more slender, with longer anterior setulae at apex of tarsomere 2 and on tarsomeres 3–4. Tarsomere 1 longer than combined length of tarsomeres 2–5. Tarsomere 2 subequal to combined length of tarsomeres 3–5 with apex very slightly widened, pointed anteriorly and bearing a few anteroapical setulae (slightly longer than tarsomere width). Tarsomeres 3–4 about as long as wide, with longer anterior setulae (slightly longer than tarsomere width). Hindleg: Yellow, except femur faintly brown on apical third, tibia faintly brown apically, tarsus brown from near middle of tarsomere 1. Femur ventrally with very short yellow-brown to black setae, with larger (subequal to femur width) ventral seta below preapical seta. Tibia with ventral setae near base not noticeably longer. Wing (Fig. 89): Very similar to C. cascadia sp. nov. except posterior margin with slightly shallower and broader excavation at apex of M 4, R 4+5 and M 1 less bowed beyond crossvein dm-m and slightly diverging at apex, distal section of M 4 slightly shorter (about 2.75X longer than crossvein dmm). Abdomen: Tergite 1 yellow laterally, brown dorsally. Tergites 2–3 mostly to wholly yellow. Tergite 4 usually yellow near base, sometimes mostly brown. Sternites yellow, sternite 5 yellow-brown. Hypopygium: Postgonites with apical lobes sharply pointed, varying from light to dark brown. Female. Wing length 3.1–3.4 mm. Similar to male except as follows: Head: Face wider but relatively narrow (subequal to postpedicel width), nearly parallel-sided, slightly narrowing to clypeus, light gray. Antenna with scape and pedicel usually yellow-brown; postpedicel short, as wide as long, with round apex; arista-like stylus unmodified. Palpus much larger, triangular, rounded apically, brown with slight gray pruinosity, with longer yellow marginal setae and usually shorter black medial setae. Thorax: Proepimeron with usually 1 very small white hair (easily missed), sometimes with 2 or 3 very small hairs. Legs: Unmodified, without specialized setae. Hind tibia yellow. Hind tarsomere 1 mostly yellow. Wing: Elongate oval, posterior margin indistinctly excavated at apex of M 4. Abdomen: Tergite 2 mostly yellow, brown along posterior margin. Tergite 3 usually broadly yellow laterally, sometimes with small yellow lateral spot. Sternites yellow. Distribution and seasonal occurrence. Known from eastern Iowa, northern Michigan east to New Brunswick and south to Virginia (Fig. 94). Adults have been collected June through early September. Remarks. I have collected adults from quite dark areas in forests, for example, on vegetation beneath hemlocks and by sweeping beneath undercut stream banks.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 topicMarine Biology and Environmental ChemistryFrench-language works237,207