Lichens and bryophytes of the alpine and subalpine zones of Katahdin, Maine, III: Bryophytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field studies on the east side of Mount Katahdin, Maine, from 2001 to 2004, and an appraisal of published and unpublished Katahdin records from previous work documented 203 different bryophytes (131 mosses and 72 liverworts) for subalpine conifer forest, alpine tundra and cirque walls, and krummholz in between. This work represents the only recent investigation of a high altitude bryoflora in the mountains of the northeastern United States. Two mosses (Hygrohypnum smithii, Pohlia tundrae) are new to this region, and six others, including Neckera oligocarpa, are new records for Maine. Investigations of Grimmia (4 spp.), Cynodontium (2 spp.) and Kiaeria (2 spp.) clarified the application of taxonomic concepts for these mosses relative to previous published work. In conjuction with parallel studies of Katahdin lichens, eight habitats were specified for the study area. These habitats were largely the same places as those recognized for lichens. The eight habitats differed in the number of Arctic mosses and in unique occurrences of various mosses and liverworts. Mean Arctic-boreal-cool temperate values, introduced as an analytical tool to evaluate the distributional affinities of Kathadin lichens, were calculated for bryophytes for seven of eight habitats. The mean for each habitat class was well predicted by a multiple regression equation, with altitude, solar gain and snowpack persistence, but not substratum, as independent variables. Upper and lower altitutinal limits of bryophyte species occurrence were determined. The documented presence of Katahdin alpine bryophytes in four other mountain areas in northeastern United States and adjacent Québec, Canada, showed fewer of them in western areas (the high Adirondack Mountains, New York and Mt. Mansfield, Vermont), a possible outcome of increasing oceanic conditions eastward.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".