Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheilosia (Taeniochilosia) vicina (Zetterstedt, 1849) Cheilosia vicina Zetterstedt, 1849: 3175. Cheilosia nasutula Becker, 1894: 342. Syn. by Lucas et al. (1995). Cheilosia nasutula – Tóth 1986: 94. Cheilosia vicina – Mengual et al. 2020: 26. — Żóralski & Bystrowski 2021: 26. Remarks Tóth (1986) reported the single known record of this species from the Caucasus; one male collected on 28 May 1975 in the Kodori valley (Greater Caucasus area). Cheilosia vicina is very similar to C. nigripes and the best difference between the two species is the pruinose frons and posterior anepisternum in C. vicina, which are shiny in C. nigripes. However, specimens of C. nigripes collected in the Caucasus have a pruinose frons and posterior anepisternum too, which makes the identification very difficult (see Differential diagnosis under C. nigripes). Since both species are morphologically more similar in the Caucasus Region than previously thought and all studied specimens belong to C. nigripes, it is very likely that the specimens of C. vicina reported by Tóth belong to C. nigripes. The presence of this species in the Caucasus needs further evidence. Genetics We included several DNA barcodes of C. vicina from Europe in our NJ tree, which cluster with high support (BS = 99.9%) with the barcodes of C. sahlbergi, C. impudens, and C. nigripes. Distribution Europe, European parts of 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".