The ethnobotany of bryophytes in Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mexico has an extensive record of vascular plants that are used by humans and associated with traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). However, for non-vascular plants like bryophytes, there is no consensus on how many and which species have any TEK associated with them. Questions: How many bryophyte species are used by humans in Mexico? What TEK is associated with them? Why is it important to document ethnobotanical information on bryophytes? Studied species: Bryophytes sensu lato . Study site and dates: Mexican territory. Time span covered by the studies reviewed was from 1552 to 2020. Methods: Information in published materials, repositories, and personal fieldwork records were used to build a database on bryophyte taxa associated with some TEK in Mexico. Results: According to available data, the bryophyte flora with some associated TEK in Mexico includes 36 species belonging to 30 genera and 23 families. The main use is ceremonial, although craft, environmental, medicinal, and ornamental uses are also reported. Conclusions: This study updates the number of bryophytes used as non-forest timber resources. Ethnobotanical records for Mexico are among the highest in countries that use bryophytes in human enterprises.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".