The Possible Effect of Cypsela Morphology on Endemism in Solidago shortii
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project focuses on the differences between Solidago altissima and S. shortii , or the common and Short’s goldenrods, respectively, and endeavors to provide an explanation for the narrow endemism of Short’s goldenrod, relative to that of the common goldenrod. The common goldenrod has a range spanning from Southern Canada to Northern Mexico, while the Short’s is found only in two locations in Kentucky and Indiana. They are rather similar to the untrained eye, but further observation reveals drastic morphological differences between the seeds of the two species, with those of the Short’s being far larger than those of the common goldenrod, despite the two species having pappi, or parachute-like tufts of hair, of virtually identical size. This project examines data collected in the laboratory relating both to the morphology of the cypselae of the two species and behavior of the cypselae of the two species under conditions analogous to those seen in nature. The achenes of the Short’s goldenrod were observed to be statistically significantly longer and wider than those of the common goldenrod, but no significant differences observed in the length of the pappi of the two species. The cypselae of the Short’s goldenrod were observed to fall statistically significantly faster and be blown for a statistically significantly shorter distance than those of the common goldenrod. This difference in the ability of the cypselae to be disseminated via wind may contribute to the rarity and endemism of the Short’s goldenrod.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".