MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116616854 · doi:10.1080/23818107.2020.1848621

The taxonomy and conservation status of <i>Isoetes</i> (Isoetaceae; Lycopodiopsida) in India

2020· article· en· W3116616854 on OpenAlexaff
S. K. Singh, Pradeep K. Shukla, Daniel F. Brunton, Nawal Kishore Dubey, Santosh Kumar Shukla

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonConfusionEndangered speciesBiologyConservation statusTaxonomy (biology)BiodiversityEndemismHabitatEcologyGeographyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many cases over the years the diversity of Isoetes in India has been defined by inconsistent morphological analyses and questionable data. This has resulted in substantial confusion, dramatically different taxonomic interpretations and a low level of global acceptance. That in turn has prevented the reliable determination of conservation priorities. The present study reviews the most reliable morphological, distributional and cytological Indian data available with techniques and standards that have guided successful taxonomic investigations of Isoetes elsewhere in the world. This results in the enumeration of nine readily distinguishable species for India. One named hybrid is also discussed as is the probable occurrence of other unnamed hybrids. All Indian Isoetes species except I. coromandelina subsp. coromandelina are endemic. Two possible but unresolved taxa are also discussed. A clearer determination of the highest national priorities for Isoetes conservation has resulted. Most Indian taxa are rare, some qualifying as Endangered and others probably being extinct. Suggestions for conservation strategies and actions to protect and sustain vulnerable Isoetes species and their habitats are offered.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotany LettersSame topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207