MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153502401 · doi:10.1093/botlinnean/boab027

Resolving páramo<i>Poa</i>(Poaceae): morphometric and phylogenetic analysis of the ‘<i>Cucullata</i>complex’ of north-west South America

2021· article· en· W3153502401 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven P. Sylvester, Robert J. Soreng, Lynn J Gilliespie

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanical Journal of the Linnean Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
FundersCanadian Museum of NatureNewton FundNanjing Forestry University
KeywordsBiologyTaxonPhylogenetic treePoaceaeSpecies complexTaxonomy (biology)BotanyIdentification keyZoologyKey (lock)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Species delimitation in the Poa taxa of the ‘Cucullata complex’ from the páramos of north-west South America, morphologically defined by open panicles and webbed calluses, among other characters, has been complicated by their large morphological variability coupled with a lack of available taxonomic treatments. Using multivariate morphometric and phylogenetic analyses, distinct groupings of taxa were identified including the new páramo taxa, P. bricenoi sp. nov. from Venezuela and P. cucullata subsp. cucullatella subsp. nov. from Ecuador, which are described and illustrated. Poa scabrivaginata is also presented as a new record for Ecuador and páramo vegetation in general. Based on the results from this study, updated descriptions and images are also presented for P. chirripoensis, P. cucullata s.s., P. petrosa and P. scabrivaginata, and an identification key is provided for the species of the Cucullata complex and other open-panicled Poa spp. from Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanical Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207