MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6968827750 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6202234

Saetherocladius urubiciensis Andersen, Mendes & Pinho, 2010, sp. n.

2010· article· en· W6968827750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeSetaWingThorax (insect anatomy)DorsumGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saetherocladius urubiciensis sp. n. (Figs 20–25) Type material. Holotype male, slide mounted in Canada balsam. Brazil: Santa Catarina State, Urubici, Morro da Igreja, 1.822 m a.s.l., 18.ix.–5xii.2004, Malaise trap, cloud forest, L.C. Pinho & L.E.M. Bizzo (MZUSP). Paratypes: 3 males, as holotype (MZUSP, ZMBN). Diagnostic characters. The species can be separated from the other species in the genus by the following combination of characters: AR 0.73–0.84; virga 24–26 µm long; inferior volsella bluntly triangular, with dorsal microtrichia; gonostylus with strong, setose outer projection and anal point tapering. Etymology. The name refers to the type locality. Male (n = 3–4, except when otherwise stated). Total length 1.62–2.04, 1.91 mm. Wing length 1.09–1.21 mm. Total length / wing length 1.48–1.73. Wing length / length of profemur 2.51–2.64. Coloration. Thorax and head brown; legs, abdomen and antennae light brown. Head. AR 0.73–0.84, 0.80. Ultimate flagellomere 257–302, 287 µm long. Temporal setae 7–8, 7 including 3–4, 4 inner verticals; 3 outer verticals and 0–1, 1 postorbital. Clypeus with 5–6, 5 setae. Tentorium, stipes and cibarial pump as in Figure 20. Tentorium 104–118, 112 µm long; 17–24, 20 µm wide at sieve pore. Stipes 95–107, 98 µm long; 32 (1) µm wide. Palp segment lengths / widths (in µm): 13–16, 15 / 13–15, 14; 29–36, 34 / 13–16, 15; 73–82, 77 / 20–24, 22; 63–67, 65 / 17–19, 18; 109–127, 118 / 14. Third palpomere with 4–6, 5 sensilla clavata subapically; longest 10–14, 13 µm long. Thorax (Fig. 21). Antepronotum with 2–4, 3 setae. Dorsocentrals 13–17, 14; acrostichals 9–18, 16 starting close to antepronotum; prealars divided into 3 posterior and 3–4, 3 anterior setae; supraalar 1. Scutellum with 4–5, 4 setae. Wing (Fig. 22). VR 1.46–1.54. Costal extension 0–14, 7 µm long. Brachiolum with 1 seta; R with 3–8 setae; R1 with 0–1, 1 seta; other veins bare. Squama with 1–5 setae. Legs. Spur of fore tibia 50 µm long; spurs of mid tibia 19–23 (2) µm and 10–12 (2) µm long; spurs of hind tibia 41–50, 43 µm and 9–14, 11 µm long. Width at apex of fore tibia 27–28 µm; of mid tibia 27–29 (2) µm; of hind tibia 36–41, 39 µm. Comb with 15–16, 15 setae; longest 32–36, 34 µm long; shortest 15–20, 18 µm long. Lengths and proportions of legs as in Table 5. fe ti ta1 ta2 ta3 ta4 p1 410–479 482–562 216–245 120–140 67–79 30–42 p2 432–468 425–439 169–191 97–105 58–63 30–32 p3 454–511, 484 497–553, 533 302–353, 329 137–156, 148 119–139, 129 43–52, 48 continued. ta5 LR BV SV BR p1 40–43 0.44–0.45 4.13–4.32 4.13–4.18 2.5 p2 36–40 0.40–0.43 4.55–4.63 4.75–5.06 2.7–2.8 p3 43–47, 45 0.60–0.64, 0.62 3.60–3.67, 3.63 2.96–3.16, 3,10 2.6–3.6, 3.1 Hypopygium (Figs 23–25). Anal point 20–27, 23 µm long; 5–7, 6 µm wide at base; 2 µm wide at apex; with 4–10, 8 setae basally. Laterosternite IX with 4–5, 4 setae. Phallapodeme 63–65, 64 µm long; transverse sternapodeme 61–73, 65 µm long. Virga 24–26, 25 µm long. Gonocoxite 120–137, 129 µm long. Gonostylus 65–68, 67 µm long, with large, rounded crista dorsalis and strong, setose outer projection; megaseta 8–11, 10 µm long. HR 1.77–2.07, 1.94. HV 2.46–3.14, 2.88. Female and immatures. Unknown. Distribution and ecology. The species was collected in a Malaise trap in a pristine cloud forest at 1.822 m a.s.l. in Santa Catarina State.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→