MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560649234

A comparison of macrolichen species richness and frequency between the oak savanah and boreal woods habitats on Lake of the Woods Islands in Kenora, Ontario, Canada

2006· article· en· W2560649234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Virginia Richards Amundson

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - Hamline (Hamline University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessLichenGeographyBorealHabitatEcologyTaigaArchaeologyPhysical geographyForestryBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This comparative lichen study was completed in the northwest area of Ontario, where Lake of the Woods is located. A systematic lichen floral study has never been done in this area. It started with beauty and wonder observing Xanthoria parietina, beautiful orange lichens, on the vertical rock surfaces along the lake channels and wondering about their distribution. This led me to Dr. Michele Piercey-Normore, a lichenologist at the University of Manitoba, to help design a study and to Irwin Brodo's Lichens of North America. Plots along transects were used to compare boreal and oak habitats. Lichens were collected and identified using dichotomous keys and thin-layer chromatography. The boreal habitat had a lichen frequency twice as large as in the oak habitat. The species diversity was similar for both the habitat types and the number of unique lichens collected. The species richness was larger for the boreal habitat when compared to the oak habitat.

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)0.000
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - Hamline (Hamline University)Same topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207