MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144679476 · doi:10.1071/sb14045

Lomandra marginata (Asparagaceae), a shy-flowering new species from south-western Australia

2015· article· en· W2144679476 on OpenAlexaff
Terry Desmond Macfarlane, John G. Conran

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Systematic Botany · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersAustralian Biological Resources StudyEarthwatch Institute
KeywordsPedicelBractBiologyInflorescenceBotanyAsparagaceaePlant taxonomyGenusTaxonomy (biology)Systematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lomandra marginata T.D.Macfarl. & Conran is described as a new species and illustrated by photographs and a distribution map. Recognised initially from vegetative plants during a biological survey at Lochada Station, it was realised subsequently that the species is widespread from Geraldton to Corrigin. However, it apparently flowers only occasionally under favourable conditions, so earlier collections were mostly vegetative. Lomandra marginata is placed in L. series Sparsiflorae on the basis of possessing a narrow floral bract that does not encircle the pedicel and a bracteole, when present, offset rather than opposite the bract. It has distinctive membranous leaf margins resembling those of the related genus Chamaexeros and the longest pedicels in the genus, mostly 10–16 mm long, on which are borne white flowers resembling those of L. effusa (Lindl.) Ewart. Although L. effusa is the most similar species in flower and inflorescence and is also a member of L. series Sparsiflorae, it differs vegetatively by having distinctly two-toothed leaf tips.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Systematic BotanySame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207