MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201547679 · doi:10.3897/biss.5.75377

A Collective Effort to Update the Legume Checklist

2021· article· en· W3201547679 on OpenAlex
M. Marianne le Roux, Markus Döring, Anne Bruneau, Joseph T. Miller, Rafaël Govaerts, Nick Black, Gwilym P. Lewis, Carole Sinou

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Information Science and Standards · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistTaxonomic rankBiologyBiodiversityTaxonomy (biology)TaxonGlobal biodiversityEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taxonomic names are critical to the communication of biodiversity—they link data together whether it be distribution data, traits or phylogeny. Large taxonomic groups, such as many plant families, are globally distributed as is the taxonomic expertise of the family. A growing knowledge base requires collaboration to develop an up-to-date checklist as a research foundation. The legume (Fabaceae) community has a strong history of collaboration including the International Legume Database and Information Service (ILDIS), which curated the names but ILDIS is no longer up to date. In 2020, under the umbrella of the Legume Phylogeny Working Group (LPWG), a group of taxonomists began updating the legume taxonomy as part of a larger collaboration around a legume data portal. Currently the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP) is the most up-to-date reference and was used as the starting point for the project. The workflow begins with over 80 volunteer taxonomic experts updating the checklist in their specialty area. These lists are manually collated, centrally creating a consensus taxonomy with synonyms. Any taxonomic conflicts are adjudicated within the group. The checklist then undergoes a comprehensive nomenclature assessment at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and becomes part of the WCVP. This checklist was submitted to the Catalogue of Life Checklist Bank and is integrated as the preferred legume checklist in the GBIF taxonomic backbone. After one round of taxonomic curation, 38% of the legume names in GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), which were previously unmatched to WCVP, are now connected to GBIF names, therefore also improving the occurrence records of those species. The GBIF taxonomic backbone contains names found on herbarium specimens and in the literature, which are not currently part of the legume expert community checklist or WCVP. This list of unresolved names will be forwarded to the legume community for curation, thereby developing a cycle of data improvement. It is anticipated that after a few rounds of expert curation, the WCVP and GBIF taxonomies will converge. At each cycle, a snapshot of GBIF occurrences is taken and the improvement of the occurrences is quantified to measure the value of the expert taxonomic work. The current checklist is also available via Catalogue of Life and soon via the World Flora Online to support research. In this talk, we describe the workflow and impact of the expert curated legume taxonomy.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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