Ecology and Taxonomy of Water Canyon, Canadian County, Oklahoma, Master's Thesis, University of Oklahoma 1961 [Revised 2013]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous canyons have been cut into the Rush Springs Sandstone of Permian age in West Central Oklahoma and subsequently refilled. Some of these canyons have been partly exposed by erosion of the sediment fill. Fossils collected indicate the canyon fill is sub-Pleistocene to geologically recent. The microclimate of these canyons is more mesic compared to the dryer prairie uplands. Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) persists there, far west of its other locations in very eastern Oklahoma. Beginning in 1932 several of these sediment-filled canyons began a process of rapid erosion, exposing the rock walls of the canyons. This study is a comparison of Water Canyon and two of its branches: Water Branch Canyon, a stable canyon wooded with mature vegetation including sugar maple and Activity Branch Canyon, a newly excavated canyon branch that began eroding after excessive rainfall in 1932. This study was completed in 1960. Six transects are used to show the distribution of the 233 plant species found in the Water Canyon complex. Herbaceous species generally were unique to each canyon type.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".