MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6968899434 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5679773

Ablabesmyia (Ablabesmyia) aspera Roback

2011· article· en· W6968899434 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemurDark field microscopyWingScutellumDark current

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ablabesmyia (Ablabesmyia) aspera (Roback) (Fig. 8 A–C) Material examined. CANADA: Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg, 3 km off McCreary Island, 1 male, 15.vii. 1969; Grand Rapids Government Wharf, 3 males, 28.vii. 1969; Pine Dock, 8 males, 31.vii. 1969; Beaver Point, 3 males, 27.vii. & 6.viii. 1971; Old Fishing Dock, 1 male, 18.viii. 1971; Calder's Dock, 11.viii. 1971. Male (n = 2–3). Total length 4.16–4.67 mm. Wing length 2.30–2.50 mm. Total length/wing length 1.81–1.87. Wing length/profemur 2.73–2.86. Thorax brown to dark brown, vittae not too distinct; preepisternum anepisternum and postnotum dark brown; scutellum more pale. Tergite I with weak anterior infuscation, tergite II–V clear, tergites Vi–VII dark, tergite VIII dark in anterior half. Front leg with femur dark in 0.74–0.88, slightly infuscate at base; tibia with dark band at 0.13–0.21, 0.58–0.63 and 0.94–1.00; ta1 with band at 0.31–0.40 and 0.88–1.00; ta2 and ta3 dark band at apex, ta4 and ta5 darker. Mid leg with femur dark in 0.76–0.88, slightly infuscate at base; tibia with dark band at 0.15–0.23, 0.63–0.68 and 0.94–1.00; ta1 with band at 0.30–0.39 and apex; ta2 and ta3 dark band at apex, ta4 and ta5 darker. Hind leg with femur dark in 0.75–0.87, slightly infuscate at base; tibia with dark band at 0.15–0.24, 0.51–0.63 and 0.93–1.00; ta1 with band at 0.30–0.39 and apex; ta2 and ta3 dark band at apex, ta4 pale in basal half, dark in apical half; ta5 dark. Wing with dark spots exactly as in Roback (1971 fig. 606). Head. AR 1.92–2.12. Temporals 35–36, consisting of about 10–11 inner verticals, 12–15 outer verticals and 10–13 postorbitals. Clypeus with 35–38 setae. Cibarial pump, tentorium, and stipes as in Fig. 8 A. Tentorium 188– 221 µm long, 64–71 µm wide. Stipes 158–169 µm long, 56–60 µm wide. Palp lengths (in µm): 53–56, 131–150, 161–188, 120–135, 263–315. Thorax. Antepronotum with 12–15 setae. Scutum anteriorly with row of about 30–35 tubercles. Dorsocentrals 34–42, acrostichals about 50–55, prealars 26–28, supraalar 1. Scutellum with 28–32 setae. Wing. VR 0.82–0.88. Brachiolum with 2 setae, squama with 48–53 setae. Legs. Spur of front tibia 60–64 µm long, with about 11 teeth; spurs of middle tibia 71–79 µm and 34 µm long, of hind tibia 71–83 µm and 38–41 µm. Width at apex of front tibia 53–60 µm, of middle tibia 56 µm, of hind tibia 56–60 µm. Pseudospurs on ta1 and ta2 of mid and hind leg and occasionally on ta3 of hind leg and ta2 of front leg, 56–75 µm long, placed in apical half. Lengths and proportions of legs as in Table 1. Hypopygium (Fig. 8 B, C; Roback 1971 fig. 7). Tergite IX with 2 setae. Gonocoxite 218–240 µm long, gonostylus 191–210 µm long. Transverse sternapodeme 49–56 µm long, 23–34 µm wide. Blade (superior volsella) 66– 71 µm long, dorsal lobe 45–52 µm long, lateral lobe 26–35 µm long, pars ventralis 24–26 µm long. Apex of gonostylus with about 12 teeth in 12 by 12 µm wide apex. HR 1.14–1.15, HV 2.18–2.24. Remarks. The larva named Pentaneurini sp. A and assumed to be A. (A.) basalis in Hamilton (1965) keys to A. (A.) aspera except that Hamilton gives an AR of 5.0–5.7 while Roback (1985 Table 10) gives an AR of 4.5–5.2. A. (A.) aspera is listed in Roback (1985: 201) as present in Marion Lake. A. (A.) aspera is closely related to A. hauberi (Roback 1985:197). The blade of the male aedeagus is supposed to be slightly sinuate in A. (A.) hauberi straight in A. (A.) aspera. The largest specimen examined here, from Beaver point, is distinctly sinuate, while the others are very slightly sinuate. According to Bohdan Bilyj (pers. comm.) on uncompressed hypopygia the blade in A. (A.) aspera is curved (or slightly sinuate) upwards (dorsally) so that the focusing has to be adjusted from the base to the apex, while in A. (A.) hauberi the blade lies in the same dorsoventral (horizontal) plane and curves laterally. There are also subtle differences in the dorsal lobe. Once any sort of pressure is placed on the hypopygium then this directional difference of the blade is no longer observable. At least the specimen with the most apparently sinuate blade is as in A. (A.) aspera. All measurements of the examined specimens are as mentioned by Roback (1971: 369) and larger than those given for A. (A.) hauberi. A complete description is given here in order to facilitate the separation of the two species. Distribution. The species is known from British Columbia to New Hampshire and south to Florida and California (Roback 1985: 201; Oliver et al. 1990: 10; Hudson et al. 1990: 3; Spies 1999; Epler 2003, 2010; Caldwell 2009; Ashe & O’Connor 2009: 113).

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicIchthyology and Marine Biology→French-language works237,207→