Identifying pollen grains of<i>Typha latifolia, Typha angustifolia,</i>and<i>Typha</i>×<i>glauca</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typha angustifolia L. and Typha ×glauca Godron have increased their ranges on the North American continent over the past 150 years, and the pollen record has potential to document this spread. In T. angustifolia, pollen disperses as a reticulate, monoporate monad, similar in appearance to the pollen of Sparganium eurycarpum Engelm. Typha angustifolia and Sparganium are generally not distinguished, and T. ×glauca is rarely shown on pollen diagrams. My study of pollen reference material shows that Typha monads and Sparganium can be separated using diameter and roundness at a known level of statistical confidence. Typha monads are on average significantly smaller in diameter (mean and standard deviation = 22.7 ± 2.6 µm) than Sparganium (25.3 ± 2.7 µm). The incidence of angularity is higher in T. angusti folia pollen grains, whereas Sparganium grains are more often rounded. The pollen signature of T. ×glauca consists of mostly monads, but can contain up to 30% dyads, and (or) 14% tetrads, and (or) 10% triads. I suggest that T. angusti folia and T. ×glauca can be identified as one category in the pollen record and, where their dates of arrival are known, this category may be used as a chronostratigraphic indicator.Key words: Typha, Sparganium, pollen, invasive species, wetlands.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".