A Taxonomic Conspectus of <I>Ceanothus</I> subgenus <I>Cerastes</I> (Rhamnaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The diverse New World shrub genus Ceanothus (Rhamnaceae) is made up of two deeply divergent, reciprocally monophyletic groups that are treated as subgenera in most recent systematic and flora treatments, Ceanothus subgenus Cerastes, and Ceanothus subgenus Ceanothus. The two groups are phylogenetically divergent and appear to have simultaneously diversified in western North America, particularly the California Floristic Province. Ceanothus subgenus Cerastes is easily distinguished from Ceanothus subgenus Ceanothus by its sclerophyllous (versus thin) leaves, stomata sequestered in pits (versus on the leaf surface), and swollen (versus papery) stipules. Low levels of genetic divergence among species, combined with highly variable, intergrading morphology makes taxonomic work in Ceanothus subgenus Cerastes difficult. To aid research in this diverse and ecologically important group of plants, we present a taxonomic conspectus of Ceanothus subgenus Cerastes, including formal recognition of Cerastes at the rank of subgenus, and recognition of all infraspecific taxa at the rank of variety. We discuss problems with defining taxa in Ceanothus subgenus Cerastes, and call attention to the need to distinguish between the subgenera in Ceanothus research. Twenty-five species and 10 varieties are recognized in Ceanothus subgenus Cerastes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".