MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300112534 · doi:10.14288/1.0101073

Taxonomic revision of the genus Philonotis for North America, north of Mexico

2011· article· en· W2300112534 on OpenAlexaff
William Milton Zales

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyGenusZoologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Philonotis (Musci) is revised for North /America, north of Mexico, and exclusive of Greenland, following the last revision for this region by Seville Flowers in 1935. Collections and field observations of all but two of the recognized taxa were made from a wide diversity of habitats throughout most of their geographic range in North America. Numerous collections were cultured in a uniform environment to determine the stability of taxonomically diagnostic morphological characters. The position of papillae on the leaf cells, the structure of marginal cells, and to some degree the leaf shape and leaf cell shape are stable characters that are not modified by the environment. All other morphological characters examined are ecophenic and cannot be utilized to segregate taxa. The present revision recognizes seven species and two varieties; Philonotis glaucescens (Hornsch.) Broth., P. longiseta (Rich, in Michx.) Britt., P. sphaerocarpa (Hedw.) Brid., P. mavohioa (Hedw.) Brid., P. capillaris Lindb. ex Hartm., P. fontana (Hedw.) Brid. var. fontana, P. fontana var. amevicana (Dism.) Flow, ex Crum, P. fontana var. pumila (Turn.) Brid., and P. yezoana Besch. et Card, in Card, (new to North America). Chromosome counts of n = 6 for P. glaucescens and n = 12 for P. longiseta are new reports. Keys, descriptions, illustrations, and distribution maps are provided for identification of the 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207