MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046682455 · doi:10.1139/b00-040

The vascular flora of Terra Nova National Park, Newfoundland, Canada: a biodiversity analysis from a biogeographical and life form perspective

2000· article· en· W2046682455 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
René Charest, Luc Brouillet, André Bouchard, Stuart G. Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkFlora (microbiology)BorealHabitatGeographyEcologyCyperaceaeTaxonBiodiversityBiogeographyCarexFloristicsVascular plantArcticBiologySpecies richnessPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terra Nova National Park, located on the east coast of Newfoundland, has a vascular flora of 535 taxa, including 33 rare species and 94 introduced taxa. About 75% of the native flora of the Park is composed of hemicryptophyte and cryptophyte species. Phanerophytes and nanophanerophytes represent only 13% of the flora, but the percentages of occurrence of these life forms reaches 31%. The flora of the Park is mainly boreal (56%), composed mainly of Boreal North American, Boreal Eastern North American, and Circumboreal elements. Arctic-alpine species are infrequent. We report two species as new to Newfoundland: Festuca richardsonii Hooker (Poaceae) and Carex communis L.H. Bailey var. communis (Cyperaceae). Significant positive and negative associations between (i) life forms and (ii) phytogeographical elements, and the distribution of species within the habitats of the Park were established using the Fourth Corner Method. Distribution of life forms and phytogeographical elements within habitats of the Park appears to be explained more by ecological characteristics of species than by their history.Key words: life form, biogeography, biodiversity, Terra Nova National Park, Newfoundland, Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207