MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158318440 · doi:10.3897/phytokeys.52.8721

New vascular plant records for the Canadian Arctic Archipelago

2015· article· en· W2158318440 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lynn J. Gillespie, Jeffery M. Saarela, Paul C. Sokoloff, Roger D. Bull

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoKeys · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
FundersAurora Research Institute
KeywordsVascular plantArchipelagoFlora (microbiology)BiologyBotanyTaxonArcticEcologySpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Arctic Archipelago is a vast region of approximately 1,420,000 km(2), with a flora characterized by low species diversity, low endemicity, and little influence by alien species. New records of vascular plant species are documented here based on recent fieldwork on Victoria and Baffin Islands; additional records based on recent literature sources are mentioned. This paper serves as an update to the 2007 publication Flora of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and brings the total number of vascular plants for the region to 375 species and infraspecific taxa, an increase of 7.7%. Three families (Amaranthaceae, Juncaginaceae, Pteridaceae) and seven genera (Cherleria L., Cryptogramma R. Br., Platanthera Rich., Sabulina Rchb., Suaeda Forssk. ex J.F. Gmel., Triglochin L., Utricularia L.) are added to the flora, and one genus is deleted (Minuartia L.). Five species are first records for Nunavut (Arenarialongipedunculata Hultén, Cryptogrammastelleri (S.G. Gmel.) Prantl, Puccinelliabanksiensis Consaul, Saxifragaeschscholtzii Sternb., Utriculariaochroleuca R.W. Hartm.).

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0150.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoKeysSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207