Cheilosia (Pollinocheila) semifasciata Becker 1894
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheilosia (Pollinocheila) semifasciata Becker, 1894 Fig. 67 Chilosia semifasciata Becker, 1894: 443. Chilosia semifasciata – Barkalov 1993: 699. — Barkalov & Mutin 2018: 486. Differential diagnosis Cheilosia semifasciata is characterized by the combination of bare face, bare eye, at least base of tibiae yellow, posterior margin of scutellum with setae and ventral and dorsal pile patches on katepisternum widely separated. Easily misidentified because of inconclusive pattern on Sterna II–IV, not being uniformly shiny nor pruinose: on anterior part distinctly pruinose, on posterior part usually shiny. Males can be distinguished from similar species by the distinct pruinose spots on the abdomen (two large grey pruinose spots on terga II–IV) and the females by the scutum with erect golden pile. For identification from similar but extralimital C. fasciata Schiner & Egger, 1853, see Bot & Van de Meutter (2023). Material examined Not collected in 2018, but collected in 2019. GEORGIA • 1 ♂, Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti; 43.1166° N, 42.7276° E; 1850 m a.s.l.; 14 Jun. 2019; X. Mengual leg.; ZFMK, ZFMK-DIP-00066393 = ZFMK-TIS-8008774. Genetics COI sequences of C. semifasciata from Europe and Caucasus cluster together with high support (BS = 100%). Remarks Barkalov (1993) reported a single female of C. semifasciata collected in Lars, a small town in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. Thus, our record is the first for Georgia. Distribution Europe, Caucasus (Georgia, Russia).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".