On the Discovery of Eastern Leatherwood (<em>Dirca palustris</em>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existing scientific literature dates the discovery of Eastern Leatherwood (Dirca palustris L.) to the 1730s and assigns John Clayton, a plant collector in the Virginia Colony, and Dutch botanist Jan Frederik Gronovius as the discoverers. But Michel Sarrazin, an early Canadian naturalist, was apparently the first to report on this species in 1700. Moreover, he also sent a living specimen of leatherwood to France. This case reminds us that the earliest information on some North American species predates the Linnaean binomial name.La littérature scientifique courante attribue la découverte du bois de plomb (Dirca palustris L.) dans les années 1730 à John Clayton, un collectionneur de plantes dans la colonie de Virginie, et au botaniste hollandais Jan Frederik Gronovius. Cependant, le premier rapport sur cette espèce a été rédigé en 1700 par Michel Sarrazin, l’un des premiers naturalistes canadiens. En outre, il a envoyé un spécimen vivant de bois de plomb en France. Ce cas nous rappelle que les premières informations sur certaines espèces d’Amérique du Nord précèdent le nom binomial linnéen.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".