Preliminary Assessment on the Conservation Status of Canadian Medicinal Plants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the current study was to provide a preliminary assessment on the conservation status of Canadian medicinal plants in order to help guide future efforts to protect biocultural diversity in Canada. Using data provided from the Native American Ethnobotany Database (http://naeb.brit.org/), United States Department of Agriculture (https://plants.usda.gov) and Natureserve (http://explorer.natureserve.org/), a comprehensive assessment on the conservation status and distribution of Canadian medicinal plants was performed. Using this approach 1446 medicinal plants were identified in Canada, with the greatest number being located in Ontario (n = 1042), British Columbia (n = 882), and Quebec (n = 854). Of these, 54% had a Natureserve ranking as secure (S5), while 17% were currently unranked (SNA, SNR). The number of species ranked by Natureserve varied by province, with over 93% and 84% of medicinal species located in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut having not been assessed (SNA, SNR, SU) respectively. While the above is a good start to understanding the distribution and vulnerability of Canadian medicinal plants and to prioritize specific species/ecosystems for future monitoring, these databases do not fully reflect Canadian specific biodiversity information. Thus, greater effort is needed in the future to reconcile ethnobotanical, species distribution and conservation information for Canadian species within one place, as there is currently no centralized system to monitor the distribution and conservation status of medicinal flora.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it