Glyptotendipes (Glyptotendipes) paripes Edwards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glyptotendipes (Glyptotendipes) paripes (Edwards) (Fig. 3 A–C) Material examined. CANADA: Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg,Victoria Beach, 24 males, 9.vii.1969; 0.5 km off George Island, 9 males, 11. & 12.vii.1969; 10 km off (Sturgeonskin Point) Long Point, 15 males, 14.vi.1969; 3 km off McCreary Island, 14 males, 13.vii.1969; Gull Harbour, 1 male, 9 females, 16.vii. 1969; Matheson Island Government Wharf, 8 males, 26.vii. 1969; 3 km off George Island, 2 males, 27.vii. 1969; Grand Rapids Government Wharf, 17 males, 28.vii. 1969; Pine Dock, 7 males, 31.vii. & 2.ix. 1969; Beaver Point, 12 males, 7. –27.vii. 1971; 20 Mile Creek, 4 males, 26.viii. –1.ix. 1971; Old Fishing Dock, 4 males, 29.vi. 1971; Calder's Dock, 135 males, 10.vi. –26.viii. 1971; Hecla Island, 2 males, 27.vii. & 11.viii. 1971. Normal male imagines from Lake Winnipeg have an AR of 3.80–4.32, 3.99 (10); 17–33, 24 (15) sensilla chaetica on ta1 of p2, no sensilla chaetica on p3; a BR, of 6.6–9.1, 7.7 (10), and 10–20, 14 (10) setae oromedian on T IX (Saether & Galloway 1977, table 1). Hypopygium as in Fig. 3 A. The genitalia of a normal male and a female, a male intersex and several possible gynandromorphs are illustrated by Saether & Galloway (1980 figs. 3, 4). The females have 83–105, 92(8) sensilla chaetica on ta1 of p2, none on p3, and a BR1 of 2.0–2.6, 2.3 (6). The female genitalia are illustrated in Fig. 3 B, C (from Saether 1977 fig. 80 A–B) and described by Contreras-Lichtenberg (1996: 20). Distribution and ecology. The species was previously known from the Palaearctic Region excluding North Africa, from the Near East, and from Alberta and Oregon to Newfoundland, and south to Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida (Townes 1945: 142, Oliver et al. 1990: 47, Fittkau & Reiss1978: 432, Saether & Spies 2004).The species is primarily free-living in the littoral sediments of ponds and lakes with a few individuals found mining in roots and stems of water plants (Wundsch 1943). In strongly eutrophic, shallow pondlike lakes with welldeveloped and luxuriant higher vegetation, G. p a r i p e s and/or G. p a l l e n s (Meigen) may completely dominate the chironomid fauna (" Glyptotendipes -lakes") (Wundsch 1943, Nielsen 1962).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".