MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319833917 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.42.2.191

Plant Exploration: From Queen Hatshepsut to Sir Joseph Banks

2007· article· en· W2319833917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jules Janick

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)ArchipelagoAncient historyGeographyChinaArchaeologyMalayHistoryBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The worldwide exchange of fruits has been facilitated by traders, travelers, sovereigns, conquerors, diplomats, missionaries, and botanists. The beginnings of organized plant exploration date to the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, who, as early as 2000 bce , brought back exotic trees and plants in their foreign campaigns and illustrated them on their temple walls. Queen Hatshepsut (ca. 1500 bce ) sent out ships to bring back trees from the land of Punt (northeast African coast). The exchange of plants throughout antiquity was a by-product of trade routes between East and West as well as though the campaigns of conquerors including Alexander, the warriors of Islam, Genghis Khan, and the crusades. The age of exploration starting at the end of the 15th century was inspired by the search for a sea route to the spice-rich East. The encounter of Columbus with the Americas brought about an explosive exchange of New World and Old World plants. The rise of science in the 17th and 18th centuries was associated with botanical exploration involving travels and expeditions, including Hans Sloan to the West Indies, James Cunningham to China, Georg Eberhard Rumpf (Rumphius) to the Moluccas, and Sir Joseph Banks to Newfoundland, Labrador, South America Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia, the Malay Archipelago, Hebrides, and Iceland.

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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207