MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551567254 · doi:10.7202/1037932ar

Le statut de la naïade grêle (Najas gracillima, Najadaceae) au Québec

2016· article· fr· W2551567254 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Étienne Léveillé‐Bourret, Marie‐Ève Garon‐Labrecque, Eleanor R. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueLe Naturaliste canadien · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La présence de la naïade grêle, Najas gracillima (Najadaceae), dans la flore aquatique indigène du Québec est confirmée. Cette espèce sensible à la pollution est en déclin dans toute son aire naturelle nord-américaine en raison de l’eutrophisation des lacs et des cours d’eau. Pour faciliter l’identification de cette rareté, une clé des Najas de la province et une discussion des caractères permettant l’identification du Najas gracillima sont incluses. Le danger de nuire au Najas gracillima en le confondant avec l’exotique et envahissant Najas minor est souligné. De plus, nous présentons les données les plus à jour sur la répartition et l’écologie du Najas gracillima dans le monde et en Amérique du Nord, ainsi qu’une carte de répartition de l’espèce dans l’est du Canada et les territoires adjacents, basée sur un inventaire exhaustif de la littérature et des spécimens de l’Herbier national du Canada (CAN), de l’Herbier des plantes vasculaires d’Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada (DAO) et de l’Herbier Marie-Victorin (MT). Nous ajoutons des notes détaillées sur le site de la seule population connue du Québec.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLe Naturaliste canadienSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207