MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112314896 · doi:10.1139/b03-029

The ethnobotany of edible seaweed (<i>Porphyra abbottae</i> and related species; Rhodophyta: Bangiales) and its use by First Nations on the Pacific Coast of Canada

2003· article· en· W2112314896 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nancy J. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorphyraGeographyEthnobotanyAlgaeIndigenousFisheryGracilariaBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Porphyra abbottae Krishnamurthy is a nutritionally and culturally important species of red alga used by First Peoples of coastal British Columbia and neighbouring areas. This species, along with Porphyra torta and possibly others, is still harvested from wild populations in large quantities, dried and processed, and served in a variety of ways: toasted as a snack, cooked with clams, salmon eggs, or fish in soup, or sprinkled on other foods as a condiment. It is also a valued trade and gift item, especially on the central and northern coasts of British Columbia and Alaska. Common linguistic origin of the majority of names for this species among some 16 language groups in five language families indicates widespread exchange of knowledge about this seaweed from southern Vancouver Island north to Alaska. Coastal indigenous people have expressed concerns about potential commercialization of Porphyra and impacts from pollution and global climate change.Key words: Porphyra abbottae, Northwest Coast, traditional food, Aboriginal people, marine algae, edible seaweed.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations92
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207