MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968466321 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14808927

Rhytomus sodalis Saxton & Genier 2025, new species

2025· article· en· W6968466321 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeDorsumParatypeType (biology)Column (typography)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rhytomus sodalis Saxton & Génier, new species urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 7168813D-24AF-4CCA-8B46-B5168014A9E3 Figs. 7H, 8H, 10C, 12C Name-bearing type data. Holotype ♂ (CMNC): || PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Western | Prov., P’nvang, CI RAP Survey | Camp 1. 05º29.5S 141º32.6E | 573 m. May 2013. T. Larsen ||; || Canadian Museum of | Musée canadien de la | NATURE | CMNEN 00049583 || [QR code label]; || HOLOTYPE ♂ | Rhytomus | sodalis | Des. N. Saxton & F. Génier, 2024 || [red card]. Material examined (69 ♂♂, 24 ♀♀). PAPUA NEW GUINEA: WESTERN PROVINCE, CI RAP Survey Camp 1, P’nvang, 575 m, 05°29’S, 141°32’E, v.2013, T. Larsen — 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ paratypes (ANIC), 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ paratypes (NHMUK), ♂ holotype, ♀ allotype, 23 ♂♂, 12 ♀♀ paratypes (CMNC), 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ paratypes (MNHN), 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀ paratypes (NMPC), 1 ♂, 1 ♀ paratypes (USNM); CI RAP Survey Camp 2, P’nvang, 800 m, 05°30’S, 141°34’E, v.2013, T. Larsen — 15 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀ paratypes (CMNC); CI RAP Survey Camp 3, P’nvang, 1110 m, 05°32’S, 141°33’E, v.2013, T. Larsen — 19 ♂♂, 1 ♀ paratypes (CMNC), 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀ paratypes (QM). Description. Measurements. Body length 3.0– 4.6 mm, maximum body width 2.1–2.7 mm. Holotype: body length 3.8 mm, maximum body width 2.5 mm. Body. Overall body shape in dorsal view elongate-oval, elytral edge slightly subangular at apical third. Head. Clypeal edge lateral to clypeal teeth lacking emargination, head margin at clypeogenal suture of females slightly protruding. Dorsal parts of eyes semi-ovoid, separated by an interocular space of about 3.2 times eye width. Pronotum. Pronotal width to length along midline ratio 1.7, lateral pronotal edge sharply defined throughout, pronotal pubescence short and fine, pronotal basal portion along midline lacking fine longitudinal depression. Elytra. Elytral maximum width to length along suture ratio 1.0, elytral outline moderately convex in lateral view, elytral pubescence long and conspicuous, elytral surface between punctures appearing glossy, at most with ill-defined microsculptures, basal elytral pit wide and deep, basal surface of pseudepipleuron with irregularly distributed more or less defined punctures, interstriae 3–5 on basal fifth with two rows of punctures along striae, with at most a few scattered punctures in some individuals. Legs. Profemoral anterior surface flat or might appear furrowed in some individuals, male metatibial apicointernal tooth approximately in line with posterior tibial edge (Fig. 12C). Pygidium. Pygidial surface along midline with punctures similar in density to rest of discs, pygidial surface along basal groove with coarse transverse microsculptures (Fig. 8H), pygidium of female depressed basally. Aedeagus. Left paramere apex truncated apically, distinctly angular externally (Fig. 10C). Female genitalia. Spermatheca with two apodemes basally and one apodeme apically. Etymology. The specific epithet of this species is a masculine noun in apposition “sŏdālis ” (companion, mate, fellow) relating to the fact that it was collected along with R. larseni and R. latidentatus. Remarks. One female specimen (excluded from type series) was discovered from the same collecting event (i.e., Camp 1, 575 m) that had coarser pronotal punctation and a barely indicated meso-metaventrite suture. This specimen likely represents a fourth species. However, because no male specimens could be found at the time of this study, we refrain from describing it.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207