Cheilosia (Cheilosia) cynocephala Loew 1840
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheilosia (Cheilosia) cynocephala Loew, 1840 Fig. 26 Chilosia cynocephala Loew, 1840: 32. Differential diagnosis Cheilosia cynocephala is especially similar to C. confusa sp. nov. and C. vernalis. It has a blue body shine; in contrast, in C. confusa and C. vernalis the body shine is black or brown. Usually, the female of C. cynocephala has faint, blackish cloud in the wing (but this characteristics is missing in the only Caucasian studied specimen), missing in the other two species. Another character to exclude C. confusa is the predominantly black pile on the scutum (predominantly yellow pilose in C. confusa). Other characters to exclude C. vernalis are: parafacia wide and pruinose in C. cynocephala (narrower and shiny in C. vernalis), scutum covered largely with black pile (in C. vernalis pile varying from yellow to black) and tarsus of mesoleg black (in C. vernalis often basal two tarsomeres orange). Material examined GEORGIA – Samtskhe-Javakheti • 1 ♀; Borjomi; 41.838 ° N, 43.337 ° E; 910 m a.s.l.; 2 Sep. 2019; J. Mortelmans leg.; FMT. Genetics All DNA barcodes of C. cynocephala (from Finland and Spain; see Ballester-Torres et al. 2024) are recovered together with low support value (BS<90%). Remarks Reported from the Caucasus for the first time. Distribution Europe, Western Siberia and Caucasus (Georgia).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".