Cheilosia (Taeniochilosia) pollinifacies Stackelberg 1968
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheilosia (Taeniochilosia) pollinifacies Stackelberg, 1968 Fig. 56 Cheilosia pollinifacies Stackelberg, 1968: 227. Cheilosia pollinifacies – Stackelberg & Richter 1968: 247. — Peck 1988: 113. — Barkalov 1993: 702. — Barkalov & Ståhls 1997: 52. — Barkalov & Mutin 2018: 486. — Mengual et al. 2020: 26. Cheilosia ponilifacies Stackelberg 1956 [sic] – Gujabidze 2002: 246. Differential diagnosis Cheilosia pollinifacies belongs to the subgenus Taeniochilosia by the combination of bare eye, black legs and the anterior process of lunula not broadly confluent with the face (Barkalov & Ståhls 1997). Within Taeniochilosia, it is similar to C. aenigmatosa. For a diagnosis between the two species, see the Differential diagnosis under C. aenigmatosa. The male genitalia are figured in Barkalov & Ståhls (1997). Material examined Collected in 2018, 2019 and 2021; see Mengual et al. (2020) for detailed records from 2018. Genetics All DNA barcodes of C. pollinifacies cluster together with high support (BS = 98.6%). See also Remarks for C. aenigmatosa. Biology During our expeditions, collected between 9 June and 31 July at an altitude between 1797 and 2630 m a.s.l. Most common on alpine meadows where it feeds on the flowers of herbaceous plants Distribution Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".