MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769719494 · doi:10.7202/1042010ar

L’aubépine du Canada (Crataegus canadensis Sargent), une espèce à part entière, endémique au Québec et différente de l’aubépine subsoyeuse (Crataegus submollis Sargent)

2017· article· fr· W2769719494 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
André Sabourin

Bibliographic record

VenueLe Naturaliste canadien · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsSanté Montérégie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesCrataegusArtBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’aubépine du Canada,Crataegus canadensisSargent (Rosaceae), a été considérée comme une espèce distincte par la majorité des auteurs jusqu’à récemment. Elle est désormais incluse en synonymie avec l’aubépine subsoyeuse (Crataegus submollisSargent) dont elle ne serait qu’une forme locale de la région de Montréal. Les 2 espèces sont semblables par certaines caractéristiques morphologiques. Toutefois, des observations effectuées sur une quinzaine d’années et des mesures prises sur le terrain et en herbier en 2015, 2016 et 2017 jettent un nouvel éclairage. Les différences entre les 2 espèces pour plusieurs caractères morphologiques pourraient justifier queC. canadensissoit considéré comme un taxon à part entière. Une description de ces différences est présentée concernant le nombre d’étamines, la position et la longueur des sépales, les dimensions du limbe et l’incision des sinus inférieurs des feuilles, la dimension et la forme des fruits. La répartition géographique de l’aubépine du Canada, limitée et endémique à la grande région de Montréal, est aussi détaillée.

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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

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 studies0.0020.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLe Naturaliste canadienSame topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207