MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970688512 · doi:10.5772/intechopen.88150

Eastern Poison Ivy (<i>Toxicodendron radicans</i> L.): A Bioindicator of Natural and Anthropogenic Stress in Fields and Forests

2019· book-chapter· en· W2970688512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dean G. Fitzgerald, D. R. Wade, Patrick F. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueIntechOpen eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioindicatorDominance (genetics)Herbaceous plantEcologySalinityWoody plantGeologyEnvironmental scienceBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter considers herbaceous and woody plants near the 1800s era hydrocarbon extraction areas (HEAs) in Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory (WUT) on Manitoulin Island, Lake Huron, Ontario, Canada. Plant community assessment used patterns of diversity and distribution at five field and six forest sites to assess the response of the plants to HEAs. These sites receive brine episodically from HEAs and natural seeps over the Collingwood Oil Shale Formation. This brine contains high concentrations of chloride and sodium along with total dissolved solids that exceed 100,000 mg/L. Exposure to brine is identified as the causative factor shaping plant distribution, survival, size, leaf bleaching (i.e., chlorosis), and dead branches on woody stems. These sites demonstrate an ecotone of disturbance defined by transition from natural plant community to dominance by eastern poison ivy (EPI, Toxicodendron radicans L.). Disturbed sites within brine drainage areas are dominated by EPI, reflecting tolerance to elevated salinity due to rhizome growth strategy. Evaluation of the plant communities and EPI allowed for preparation of a framework that can be used to guide interpretation of response of plants to drainage of brine from HEAs and natural sources beyond WUT.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntechOpen eBooksSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207