MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000074638 · doi:10.1017/s0960428612000030

FLORISTIC INVENTORY OF ONE HECTARE OF PALM-DOMINATED CREEK FOREST IN JENARO HERRERA, PERU

2012· article· en· W2000074638 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. M. Prickett, Eurídice N. Honorio Coronado, Yuki G. Baba, Maria Baden, Carlos Mariano Alvez‐Valles, C. A. Quesada

Bibliographic record

VenueEdinburgh Journal of Botany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional Agraria La MolinaRio TintoRoyal Geographical SocietyRoyal Scottish Geographical Society
KeywordsArecaceaeFloristicsMeliaceaeSapotaceaeBasal areaForestryGeographyAmazon rainforestFabaceaeBiologyBotanyPalmEcologySpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A floristic inventory was carried out in an area of palm-dominated creek forest in Jenaro Herrera, in the northeast of Peru. All trees ≥ 10 cm dbh were surveyed in a one-hectare permanent plot using the standard RAINFOR methodology. There were 618 individuals belonging to 230 species, 106 genera and 43 families. The results showed that the total basal area of the trees in the plot was 23.7 m2. The three species with the highest importance value indexes were Iriartea deltoidea Ruiz & Pav., Oenocarpus bataua Mart. (Arecaceae) and Carapa procera DC. (Meliaceae). The five most dominant families in order of importance were Arecaceae, Fabaceae, Meliaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Sapotaceae. Although the soil of this plot was poorly drained, the number of trees and the diversity of the plot were typical for terra firme forest in the western Amazon.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdinburgh Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207