MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060331232 · doi:10.3119/14-05

Chromosome number determinations in fam. Compositae, tribe Astereae. VIII. Eastern North American taxa. II

2015· article· en· W2060331232 on OpenAlexaffabout
John C. Semple, Rachel E. Cook, Elliott Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueRhodora · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonBiologyBotanyTribeGeographyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromosome numbers are reported for the first time for 245 individuals of 93 taxa and cultivars and two hybrids from 13 genera from eastern Canada and the eastern United States. Nearly all of the reports are for asters in Symphyotrichum plus Doellingeria, Eurybia, Oclemena, and Sericocarpus, and for goldenrods in Solidago and Euthamia. Corrections or changes in identifications for eight previous reports are also listed. The following are first documented reports for the taxa: Chrysopsis highlandsensis, 2n = 5II from Florida; Solidago simulans, 2n = 36 from North Carolina; Solidago villosicarpa, 2n = 18 from North Carolina; Symphyotrichum fontinale, 2n = 50 from Florida; Symphyotrichum grandiflorum, 2n = 30 from North Carolina; Symphyotrichum parviceps, 2n = 48 from Missouri; and Symphyotrichum rhiannon, 2n = 48 from North Carolina. A number of the counts are first reports for a particular taxon in a state: e.g., Brintonia discoidea, 2n = 18 from Alabama; Doellingeria umbellata var. umbellata, 2n = 18 from Tennessee, Eurybia spectabilis, 2n = 72 from South Carolina; Symphyotrichum oolentangiense, 2n = 32 from Tennessee.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRhodoraSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207