MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7077449170 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.16914931

Chrysopa Leach 1815

2007· other· en· W7077449170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2007
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenusInstarLarvaCaptivityType (biology)Taxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GENUS CHRYSOPA Leach, 1815 Chrysopa Leach, 1815: 138. Type species: Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, sensu Schneider, 1851, In: Tjeder 1952: 202–205; subsequent designation, i.e., previous selections rejected and perla L. designated type and placed on Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 22 (Hemming 1954); monotypy (Tjeder 1966). Chrysopa is represented by more than 50 described species, some with defined subspecies, in Asia, Europe, and North America (Brooks and Barnard 1990). In the New World, the genus is restricted to North America (Monserrat et al. 2001). Larvae are naked (Monserrat et al. 2001). Adults are predaceous, and the larvae overwinter as diapausing third instars within cocoons (Toschi 1965; Brooks and Barnard 1990; Penny et al. 2000). In North America, 10 species are recognised (Penny et al. 2000): seven of these occur in Canada; two occur in Alaska. Chrysopa quadripunctata and C. slossonae adults have been reported to interbreed in captivity (Albuquerque et al. 1997), and it is difficult to distinguish between them using preserved adults based solely upon the taxonomic characters outlined by Banks (1924; cf. Penny et al. 2000), which are highly subjective. It is possible, therefore, that C. slossonae specimens are included among those listed for C. quadripunctata from Canada.

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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.032

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→