MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101176631 · doi:10.1656/045.017.0209

Vegetation of Hooper Branch Nature Preserve, Iroquois County, Illinois

2010· article· en· W2101176631 on OpenAlexaff
Loy R. Phillippe, Mary Ann Feist, Richard L. Larimore, Daniel T. Busemeyer, Paul B. Marcum, Connie Carroll-Cunningham, James L. Ellis, John E. Ebinger

Bibliographic record

VenueNortheastern Naturalist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
FundersIllinois Department of Natural Resources
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)GeographySand dune stabilizationCarexForestryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hooper Branch Nature Preserve is located in the extensive dune and swale topography of the sand deposits of northeastern Illinois. The plant communities present at the time of this survey were similar to those of pre-settlement times. The vegetation associated with the dunes had not been disturbed except for past grazing; the swales, in contrast, were drained and farmed before the area was dedicated in 1986. Dry and dry-mesic sand savanna was associated with the dunes where Quercus velutina (Black Oak) accounted for 75% to 97% of the importance value in the savanna. Carex pensylvanica (Pennsylvania Sedge) was the dominant ground cover species usually followed by Schizachyrium scoparium (Little Bluestem). In parts of the preserve that had been most recently burned, woody species were more common in the ground layer, with the most important being Q. velutina seedlings, Rhus copallina (Dwarf Sumac), and Rubus allegheniensis (Common Blackberry). A 3-ha flatwoods in the Preserve was dominated by Q. palustris (Pin Oak), which accounted for nearly 95% of the overstory.

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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNortheastern NaturalistSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207