MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113868498 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v120i3.325

A Conservation Evaluation of Smooth Goosefoot, <em>Chenopodium subglabrum</em> (Chenopodiaceae), in Canada

2006· article· en· W2113868498 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Diana Bizecki Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChenopodiumGerminationHabitatChenopodiaceaeSand dune stabilizationPopulationBiologyEcologyBotanyAgronomyDemographyWeed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smooth Goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) is restricted to North America and reaches its northern distribution limit in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The habitat of Chenopodium subglabrum contains some element of active sand. It is commonly found on the stabilizing edges of active dunes as well as dune blowouts, and occasionally on bare or recently disturbed sand plains. Chenopodium subglabrum is a sexually reproducing annual species with seeds that may remain in the seed bank for several years, waiting for the conditions it favours for germination. Germination of this species is erratic, possibly in response to moisture, making the overall population trend difficult to determine. The estimated population in Canada is likely between 5000 and 10000 individuals. There has been considerable loss of habitat as dunes become vegetated. The processes of dune stabilization and fire control threaten survival of this 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207