Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheilosia (Cheilosia) albitarsis (Meigen, 1822) Fig. 5 Syrphus albitarsis Meigen, 1822: 290. Cheilosia albitarsis – Stackelberg & Richter 1968: 245. — Stackelberg 1970: 61. — Peck 1988: 96. — Barkalov 1993: 708. — Gujabidze 2002: 246. — Mengual et al. 2020: 14. Differential diagnosis Cheilosia albitarsis is relatively easily to identify: the male stands out, together with the extralimital C. ranunculi Doczkal, 2000, in having the proleg black, except tarsomeres 2–4 which are yellow (Fig. 5A). In other species of Cheilosia the proleg is either entirely black, or the yellow parts are at least also present on the tibia. In the female this character is sometimes less clear and the central tarsomeres can be quite dark, but still distinguishable by the combination of a bare eye (pilose in the male), lunule with distinct medial arm separating acetabula (excluding the subgenus Taeniochilosia in which lunule lacks a medial arm and the acetabula are joined forming an antennal fossa) and yellow base of the wing. For differences with C. ranunculi, including drawings of the male genitalia, see Doczkal (2000). Material examined Collected in 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023; see Mengual et al. (2020) for detailed records from 2018. Genetics All DNA barcodes of C. albitarsis are resolved into a cluster with high support (BS = 100%). Biology During our expeditions, collected between 8 May and 12 July at an altitude between 1210 and 2327 m. As is usual for the species, encountered feeding on Caltha palustris or (most often) on Ranunculus sp. Distribution Holarctic, within the Caucasus, known from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".