MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602008253 · doi:10.3897/bdj.5.e11778

On the diversity and richness of understory bryophytes at Nectandra Cloud Forest Reserve, Costa Rica

2017· article· en· W2602008253 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel H. Norris, Ekaphan Kraichak, Allen C. Risk, Diane Lucas, Dorothy J. Allard, Frida Rosengren, Theresa A. Clark, Nicole J. Fenton, Michael Tessler, Nonkululo Phephu, Evelyne T. Lennette

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Data Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBryophyteCloud forestSpecies richnessUnderstoryEcologyBiologyRainforestGeographyBotanyMontane ecologyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A survey of the understory bryophytes in the Nectandra Cloud Forest Preserve yielded 1083 specimens distributed among 55 families, represented by 74 genera of mosses, 75 genera of liverworts and 3 of hornworts. We studied and analyzed the bryophytic distribution on six types of substrates: 1) corticolous, 2) epiphyllous, 3) saxicolous, 4) terricolous, 5) aquatic and 6) lignicolous. The richness and composition of bryophyte genera are compared to those of other previous bryophyte surveys from 4 other sites with different oceanic exposures, climatic and geographic conditions in Costa Rica. NEW INFORMATION: This is a report of the first extensive general survey of bryophytes at the Nectandra Reserve, a premontane cloud forest located on the Atlantic slope of Costa Rica, an area much less studied compared to the Monteverde cloud forest on the Pacific slope.

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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.128 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversity Data JournalSame topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207