Taxonomic Study of the <i>Carex tenera</i> Group (Cyperaceae)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to previous molecular study, the Carex tenera group sensu lato consists of C. tenera s. l. and C. normalis in one clade and C. festucacea , C. oronensis , and C. tincta in a sister clade. We found that Carex tincta , clarified by thorough review of herbarium materials, has a much narrower geographic range than previously thought, centering on Maine (U. S. A.), adjacent states, and adjacent portions of Canada with rare scattered occurrences to western Lake Superior. Carex tenera has traditionally been thought to consist of two varieties: the transcontinental variety tenera and the upper Midwest (U. S. A.) variety echinodes . In light of ecological and chromosomal differences, AFLP genetic distances, and morphological analysis the latter should be recognized as a distinct species, Carex echinodes comb. et stat. nov. Carex echinodes and narrow-leaved forms of C. normalis can be challenging to differentiate morphologically, but widest leaf width, inflorescence internode length, peduncle diameter, and growth habit separate the two taxa. New chromosome numbers are reported, with those of C. tenera ( n = 24 + 2III, 26, 27, 28) having a lower range than either those of C. echinodes ( n = 37, 38, 39) or C. normalis ( n = 34, 35, 36).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it