MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6968849219 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3792784

Gnypeta dentata Klimaszewski & Savard & Pelletier & Webster 2008, sp. nov.

2008· article· en· W6968849219 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of FrederictonNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAedeagusSpermathecaApex (geometry)Head (geology)IntegumentReceptacle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5. Gnypeta dentata Klimaszewski, sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: F1457DAA-A6BF-4814-A8BF-BEE50404EB1F (Figs 7, 25 a, b, 75-82, 194) HOLOTYPE (male): CANADA, Northwest Territories, Unnamed Lake, 18 mi NW Inuvik, via East Channel, [= 68°21' N, 133°43' W] 26.VI.1972, A. Smetana, CNC No. 23677 (CNC). PARATYPES: listed in Appendix A. Etymology This species is named for distinct dents on male tergite 8. Diagnosis This species can be recognized by the following combination of characters: body length 2.5-2.7 mm (Fig. 7); elytra (at suture) about as long as pronotum and 1/4 wider than maximum width of pronotum (Fig. 7); abdomen at base slightly narrower than elytra (Fig. 7); antennal articles 4-6 subquadrate to moderately elongate, articles 7-9 slightly transverse (Figs 25 a, b); median lobe of aedeagus with apex narrowly produced with sinuate margins in lateral view (Fig. 75); spermatheca with capsule funnel-shaped and cylindrical (Fig. 80); stem curved and slightly swollen basally (Fig. 80); male tergite 8 with four apical dents (Fig. 78). Description Body length 2.5-2.7 mm; dark brown to black, sometimes central part of elytra and legs or tarsi only reddish brown (Fig. 7); integument moderately strongly glossy; pubescence yellowish grey and moderately long and dense; antennal article 4 slightly shorter than preceding article, articles 4-6 quadrate to moderately elongate, and 7-9 slightly transverse (Figs 25 a, b); head and pronotum of about the same width (Fig. 7); elytra and abdomen wider than either head or pronotum; elytra small and short (Fig. 7); head rounded basally; pronotum broadest in apical third, pubescence directed anterad along midline and laterad elsewhere; elytra (at suture) about as long as pronotum and 1/4 broader than maximum width of pronotum (Fig. 7), pubescence directed obliquely postero-laterad, wavy pattern occurs on each side of disc; abdomen subparallel, slightly narrower than elytra at base (Fig. 7); metatarsus with two basal articles of about the same length and the third one slightly shorter. Male. Tergite 8 transverse and truncate apically, with four apical dents (Fig. 78). Sternite 8 transverse and slightly produced posteriorly (Fig. 79). Median lobe of aedeagus with narrowly produced apical part of tubus in lateral view (Fig. 75); bulbus enlarged without pronounced two anterior projections in dorsal view (Fig. 76); internal sac with structures as illustrated (Figs 75, 76). Female. Tergite 8 truncate apically (Fig. 81). Sternite 8 broadly rounded posteriorly and bearing median emargination (Fig. 82). Spermatheca with capsule funnel-shaped and cylindrical (Fig. 80); stem curved and swollen basally (Fig. 80). Distribution (Fig. 194) Gnypeta dentata is a Nearctic species recorded here from Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Northwest Territories. Collection and habitat data Adults were collected in June, July and August; no habitat data available. Comments The late Gustav Adolf Lohse (Hamburg, Germany) worked on a revision of Nearctic Gnypeta, but was not able to complete his project. Some CNC specimens of this species bear his identification labels as G. dentata Lohse [manuscript – unpublished name].

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)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.016

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→