MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076673360 · doi:10.2307/1224517

In defence of using adhesives and low‐temperature pest control for botanical specimens

2001· article· en· W2076673360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael J. Shchepanek

Bibliographic record

VenueTaxon · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth Sciences
KeywordsHerbariumPEST analysisAdhesiveTaxonPest controlEcologyBiologyBotanyGeographyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Shchepanek, M. J.: In defence of using adhesives and low‐temperature pest control for botanical specimens. – Taxon 50: 169–173. 2001. – ISSN 0040‐0262. I.M. Egenberg & D. Moe have suggested that herbarium specimens mounted with adhesive combined with the low temperature technique for pest eradication causes serious damage to specimens. Experiments carried out at the National Herbarium of Canada contradict these results and show that the techniques are safe when used properly.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaxonSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207