A new native plant for New Hampshire, Hibiscus moscheutos (Malvaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hibiscus moscheutos subsp. palustris (L.) R.T. Clausen was found for the first time in New Hampshire in 2003 in the town of Hampton, Rockingham County. A second population was found in 2004, at the upper edge of a brackish marsh in the Great Bay Estuary, in the town of Newington, Rockingham County. These populations represent a slight range extension for the species, which grows in all the coastal counties of Massachusetts (Sorrie and Somers 1999). Vouchers for both popula tions are in the Hodgdon Herbarium at the University of New Hampshire (12 Aug 2004, J. Hoy 483; 27 Aug 2004, D.M. Burdick s.n.). Hibiscus moscheutos is native to North America. Its showy corollas can be white or pink and often have a red or purple center. The New Hampshire populations both have pink corollas; those of the Hampton population have red centers. There are three subspecies (Crow and Hellquist 2000). The pink corollas, leafless peduncles, and glabrate upper leaf surfaces of the New Hampshire populations identify them as H. moscheutos subsp. palustris. This subspecies appears in salt marshes and brackish to freshwater marshes along the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina and as far west as Ontario, northern Illinois, and northern Indiana. Hibiscus moscheutos subsp. moscheutos, with its white to creamy corollas, has a more southerly distribution, stretching from Maryland and Virginia west to southern Ohio and Indiana, and south to Florida and Texas. Hibiscus moscheutos subsp. incanus (J.C. Wendl.) H.E. Ahles inhabits the coastal plain from southeastern Maryland to Florida and east Texas. Unlike the other subspecies, its leaves are pubescent on both surfaces, and its capsules are densely pubescent.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".