Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheilosia (Cheilosia) flavipes (Panzer, 1798) Fig. 27 Syrphus flavipes Panzer, 1797: 10. Cheilosia flavipes – Stackelberg & Richter 1968: 245. — Peck 1988: 102. — Barkalov 1993: 705. — Barkalov & Mutin 2018: 483. — Mengual et al. 2020: 16. Differential diagnosis The male of Cheilosia flavipes has the combination of a bare eye, bare face, bicoloured legs, posterior margin of scutellum without setae and dorsal and ventral pile patches on katepisternum widely separated. These characters are shared with males of C. brunnipennis, C. megaclama sp. nov. and C. nebulosa. It has the basal three or four tarsomeres of the protarsus yellow (black in C. megaclama), arista black (with orange base in C. nebulosa), postpedicel ca 1.5 times as wide as high (ca two times as wide as high in C. brunnipennis) and angle of approximation of eyes less than 90° (100–110° in C. brunnipennis). Within the Caucasus, the female C. flavipes is easily identified by the combination of a bare eye and yellow femora. Material examined Species not collected. Genetics All DNA barcodes of C. flavipes (all from Europe) are recovered together with high support value (BS = 100%). Distribution Western and Central Palaearctic, into Siberia. Within the Caucasus only reported from the Armenian Highlands.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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.
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".