MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103015087 · doi:10.3417/2011108

The Status and Future of Orchid Conservation in North America<sup>1</sup>

2013· article· en· W2103015087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gary A. Krupnick, Melissa McCormick, Thomas Mirenda, Dennis F. Whigham

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Missouri Botanical Garden · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThreatened speciesOrchidaceaeGeographyInvasive speciesAgroforestryPolitical scienceEcologyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The status and trends of issues related to the conservation of orchids native to the United States, Canada, and Greenland are considered. We focus on nine of the 16 Targets of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). The first two targets, which all other targets rely upon, appear to have been adequately achieved, in addition to Target 11. Limited progress has been made on six other GSPC targets. Three case studies of efforts to conserve the native threatened orchids, Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl., Isotria medeoloides (Pursh) Raf., and Tolumnia bahamensis (Nash) Braem, are presented to demonstrate the difficulties as well as the issues associated with effective conservation. We describe our efforts to establish an international program to conserve all native orchids in the United States and Canada. The North American Orchid Conservation Center (NAOCC) is an internationally focused effort that is based on public-private partnerships. The goal of NAOCC is to conserve the genetic diversity of all native orchids through efforts to develop an international collection of seeds and orchid fungi. The NAOCC also focuses on the cultivation of all native orchids in an international network of botanic gardens, and they partner with private and public landowners to develop techniques to conserve and restore all native orchid species.

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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Missouri Botanical GardenSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207