MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7115067444 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17922373

Illidops rostratus

2025· article· W7115067444 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsCNIB Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeParatypeSensuArthropod mouthpartsHost (biology)Type (biology)Genus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Illidops rostratus (Tobias, 1976) Apanteles rostratus Tobias, 1976: 248, pl. 67 fig. 4. Species concept Our species concept is based on the information available in Tobias (1976), Tobias & Kotenko (1986), and Papp (1988). → *. Ecology / host information Host unknown. Distribution PAL: Armenia, Russia (KDA), Uzbekistan. Molecular data No molecular data available. Remarks Holotype female, ZIN. Country of type locality: Russia. Type depository inferred from Tobias & Kotenko (1986) by Fernandez-Triana et al. (2020). We were unable to observe any identified or unidentified material matching this species, or the type. According to its original description, this species may resemble Napamus due to the enlarged mouthparts (“proboscis, the protruding part of which is approximately equal to the height of face with clypeus” (Tobias 1976: 248)), however it lacks other diagnostic characters for the genus, such as the infumate wings, dark metatibial spurs, and more (Ghafouri Moghaddam et al. 2021). We are not entirely sure about the difference between this species and I. mutabilis as we found that the specimens of BIN BOLD:AEI2559 which we consider to match I. mutabilis morphologically and also the paratype of A. szaboi have a rather enlarged glossa. Both species as well as A. szaboi should be reexamined and compared; additional differences that should be taken into account can be found in Tobias & Kotenko (1986). Original description sensu Tobias (1976) (translated from Russian and with updated morphological terminology) Female. 2.5 mm. Head elongated, with long malar distance and long proboscis, the protruding part of the proboscis approximately equal to the height of the face including the clypeus (fig. 67, 4); gena roundly narrowed, in lateral view half the width than the transverse width of eye; ocelli in strongly obtuse triangle; tangent to posterior margin of front ocellus crossing anterior margin of posterior ocelli; POL 4× OD, and 1.5× OOL; longitudinal diameter of eye 2.0× that of transversal, and 3.5 × that of malar distance, shape of eye oval; face slightly wider than high; clypeus slightly separated from face, straight along front margin, distance between tentorial pits 2.0× distance between tentorial pit and eye margin; malar distance 1,5× basal width of mandible; maxillary palps equal to height of face with clypeus, their two apical segments together slightly longer than 3 rd, and equal to length of 2 nd. Antennae bristly, shorter than body; scape slightly shorter than F1; segments in basal half of flagellum twice as long as their width, shortened towards apex of flagellum, so that F14 and F15 are more or less quadrate. Mesosoma length 1.25 × its height; notauli not developed; scutoscutellar suture narrow, weakly crenulated. Wings equal to length of meso- and metasoma taken together; fore wing vein R1 length equal to pterostigma length, slightly longer than distance from it to apex of wing; vein r slightly longer than vein 2 RS, forming angle with it; fore wing vein 1cu-a arising before middle of 1st discal cell. Length of metafemur 4.0 × its width; larger spur of metatibia noticeably shorter than half of basitarsus; fifth segment of metatarsus slightly shorter than third, and 0.67 × second tarsomere; T1 slightly longer than its width at the middle, roundly narrowed at apical third; T2 length 0.3× T3 length, with broadly spaced oblique grooves. Ovipositor with comparatively narrow sheaths, equal in length to metatibia. Sculpture. Body with short setae, rather dense on mesonotum, concealing sculpture when viewed at an angle. Head, mesosoma and T1 with dense, uniform grained punctation, matt, other tergites of metasoma mildly scabrous, shining. Coloration. Black; maxillary palps brown; tegulae yellow; apices of profemur, protibiae and tarsi, bases of meso- and metatibiae brownish-yellow; tibial spurs whitish; wings translucent, with light brown veins, pterostigma pale medially and brown at margins, veins C+SC+R yellowish, vein R1 dark brown. Male. It differs from female by slightly longer R1 (1.5× distance from it to apex of wing), smoother sculpture posterolaterally on mesosoma, propodeum, and on basal half of T1. Glassy-transparent wings with mostly unpigmented veins (only few veins on posterior half of wing are pigmented, such as r, 2 RS, and 2M). Holotype: female, Krasnodar Territory, Gelendzhik, 8 V 1973 (Tobias). Paratype: male, Yerevan, Kanaker Garden, 16 V 1971 (Tobias).

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicParasite Biology and Host Interactions→French-language works237,207→