MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035127999 · doi:10.1071/sb10031

A revision of Commersonia including Rulingia (Malvaceae s.l. or Byttneriaceae)

2011· article· en· W2035127999 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn F Wilkins, Barbara A. Whitlock

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Systematic Botany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspeciesBiologyBotanyPlant taxonomyMonophylyRugosaTaxonomy (biology)GenusZoologySystematicsPhylogenetic treeGeneticsClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A taxonomic revision and DNA sequence analysis of all species previously attributed to Rulingia R.Br. and Commersonia J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. resulted in two major groupings, referred to a redefined Commersonia and a new genus (Androcalva C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock 2011). In total, 25 species are now recognised within Commersonia, including the type species of Rulingia, and 14 species previously included in Rulingia and 10 in Commersonia. Three of these are described as new (C. apella C.F.Wilkins, C. erythrogyna C.F.Wilkins and C. gilva C.F.Wilkins). A new subspecies, C. magniflora subsp. oblongifolia C.F.Wilkins, is recognised and C. bartramia (L.) Merr. var. tahitensis Dorr is raised to species level as C. tahitensis (Dorr) C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock. Two new combinations are made, Rulingia platycalyx Benth. and R. parviflora Endl. as C. parviflora (Endl.) C.F.Wilkins & Whitlock; and R. cistifolia Steetz and R. rugosa Steetz as C. rugosa (Steetz) F.Muell. The redefined Commersonia is monophyletic and characterised by anthers with sublatrorse dehiscence and mainly hairy staminodes, compared with extrorse dehiscence and glabrous staminodes as seen in Androcalva.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Systematic BotanySame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207