MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783816646 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2017-0166

A morphometric comparison of three closely related species of <i>Gentiana</i> (Gentianaceae), endemic to the region of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau

2018· article· en· W2783816646 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lianghong Ni

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Tibet Autonomous RegionLondon Metropolitan UniversityNatural Science Foundation of QinghaiNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGentianaGentianaceaeBiologyCalyxBractInflorescenceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gentiana section Cruciata (Gentianaceae) is mainly found on alpine mountains across Eurasia, with the greatest species diversity occurring on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Gentiana crassicaulis Duthie ex Burk. and the closely related species Gentiana robusta King ex Hook. f. and Gentiana tibetica King ex Hook. f. in sect. Cruciata show extremely high morphological similarity, which could be one of the main reasons for their misidentification. This study targets the authentication of the three closely related species in section Cruciata using morphometric analysis of flower shape. We collected 130 individuals in 14 populations of G. crassicaulis, 38 individuals in 12 populations of G. tibetica, and 45 individuals in 13 populations of G. robusta throughout the respective geographical ranges of the species. We used the parameters for bract length (l 1 ), bract width (w 1 ), inflorescence circumference (c), inflorescence width (w 2 ), calyx length (l 2 ), and corolla length (l 3 ) to quantify the flower shape. The analyses showed that the parameters R b (l 1 /w 1 ), R i (w 1 /w 2 ), and l 3 were significantly different between two of the species: G. crassicaulis and G. tibetica could be identified through corolla length, and although very similar to G. crassicaulis and G. tibetica, G. robusta is distinguishable using the parameters R b and R i .

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207