MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569580252 · doi:10.1080/0028825x.2016.1264978

Clarifications regarding Noël Necker’s names associated to <i>Chaptalia</i> (Asteraceae: Mutisieae)

2017· article· en· W2569580252 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liliana Katinas

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Botany · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSesquiterpenes and Asteraceae Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y TecnológicaUniversidad Nacional de La PlataConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
KeywordsAsteraceaeBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The generic name Chaptalia was founded by Ventenant in 1802. In 1891 Kuntze transferred 19 species from Chaptalia to Thyrsanthema , a name established by Necker in 1790, on the basis that Thyrsanthema had priority over the name Chaptalia . The monomial system of nomenclature used by Necker in his Elementa Botanica published in 1790, together with a confusing typification on the basis of Linnean species, led to different interpretations of Necker’s changes by botanists. In 1905 the Vienna Code considered Chaptalia as a nomen conservandum and Thyrsanthema as a nomen rejiciendum . In 1959, the Montreal Code established that the ‘species naturales’ of Necker are not to be treated as generic names. As a consequence, the name Chaptalia was considered a case of superfluous conservation, because Kuntze did not validate Thyrsanthema until 1891. Edward Greene in 1906 added another point of controversy establishing that the names Chaptalia and Thyrsanthema referred to totally different taxa. The nomenclatural history of Chaptalia and allied names described by Necker ( Atasites , Petasites , Thyrsanthema and Tussilago ) is reviewed, and the current status of these names is presented.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of BotanySame topicSesquiterpenes and Asteraceae StudiesFrench-language works237,207