Inventory and monitoring protocol for naturally occurring western blue flag (Iris missouriensis) in Alberta /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the release of the maintenance and recovery plan in 2002, several landowners advised of having western blue flag on their property.During the spring and summer of 2002, an inventorying and monitoring program was developed and implemented.Permission was requested and granted to inventory four of five newly discovered western blue flag sites, along with eleven previously known sites.Monitoring plots were set up at eleven of the sixteen known western blue flag locations in Alberta.Western blue flag inventorying and monitoring protocol was developed based on the total number of stems at each site.Sites were designated according to size: small, medium, large, and extra large.Inventorying was a total site stem count, whereas monitoring was the sampling procedure developed to monitor site trend over time.Inventories for small and medium sites involved counting each individual stem over the entire site to attain the total site stem count.A grouping method was used to facilitate a total site stem count on large and extra large sites.Monitoring plots were established within selected sites to monitor site health and population trend over time.Site size and variability determined the number of monitoring plots for each site.Current site stem counts were compared with previous stem counts to determine overall health and population trend.This project revealed a revised western blue flag population status of 59,200 stems at 15 of the 16 known locations; a dramatic increase from the previous population estimate of 14,757 stems.Although stem counts have risen dramatically, none of the new sites are located outside the previously known range of western blue flag.Nevertheless, a formal review of western blue flag status may be warranted based on its increased population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".