MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092496334 · doi:10.2181/036.049.0103

A Study of Substrate Variability and the Distribution of Opuntia cespitosa (Cactaceae) from Southern Ohio to Central Alabama, USA

2020· article· en· W3092496334 on OpenAlexaff
Taly Dawn Drezner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEdaphicSoil waterNutrientBiologyPopulationAgronomyEcologyOrganic matterSubstrate (aquarium)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opuntia cespitosa (Cactaceae, previously known under the synonym O. humifusa) is found over eastern North America, yet its populations are very sparse and small despite effective vegetative reproduction. Their edaphic preferences are poorly known, and may limit the distribution and success of the species. Soils were sampled for %O.M. (organic matter), %sand, %silt, %clay, pH, and kg/ha of P, K, Ca, Mg, and Zn in 33 populations over a wide area of eastern North America. Tissue testing was carried out in three populations. Opuntia cespitosa occurs over a wide variety of nutrient conditions and soil textures, including both acidic and alkaline soils, though soil nutrients were generally poor and thin. Populations of the species occurred on soils with very high levels of calcium that could be toxic for other plants, exceeding 20,000 kg/ha in some areas. Plants in these areas also had high Ca tissue levels, also common in desert cacti. Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman′s correlation results suggest that population size was not related to the soil attributes tested, but does indicate that areas mowed by large mowers have larger populations. This may be the result of local vegetative spread of fragments by mowers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of ScienceSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207