MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1624782554 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v123i1.671

Phenology, Population Dynamics, and Flowering Dynamics of Case's Ladies'-tresses, <em>Spiranthes casei</em> var. <em>casei</em> (Orchidaceae), in Ottawa, Ontario

2009· article· en· W1624782554 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Joyce M. Reddoch, A. H. Reddoch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsPhenologyPopulationBiologyOrchidaceaeGeographyJuvenileHerbivoreHorticultureBotanyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a seven-year study (2002–2008) of a population of Case’s Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes casei var. casei) in the western Greenbelt in Ottawa, Ontario, that had been extant since at least 1972. We also record a temporary colonization in the eastern Greenbelt for 11 years (1998–2008). The seven life history stages identified were seed, juvenile, immature, flowering, vegetative, offshoot (ramet), and non-emergent. Mature plants present in the first two years of the study had mean half lives of 9.4 years. Flowering and seed production were limited by damp, cloudy weather when fall rosettes develop, by gastropod herbivory in early summer, by drought in mid-summer, and by deer herbivory in late summer. Given the resulting wide fluctuations in the fractions of plants flowering, as well as the lack of visibility of vegetative plants, this study demonstrates the limitations of annual censuses of flowering stems for determining the actual sizes of populations and for detecting long-term population trends.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→