One hundred and fifty years of ethnobotanical studies in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though the term “ethnobotany” was created and characterized by John Harshberger in 1896, ethnobotanical investigations were conducted more than a quarter of a century earlier. The pivotal publication in the United States of America was issued anonymously in the 1870 Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture of the US government. It marked the shift from the cursory observations on plants used by “native” peoples to a systematic documentation and analysis of plant-people interactions and relationships over time and space; this transition coincided with the expansion of the USA into the western provinces of the North American continent. To attend to the author’s curiosity of plants with cultural significance that he encountered during his field experience with indigenous peoples as well as published literature, Dr. Edward Palmer (1831-1911) produced “Food Products of the North American Indians” for the 1870 report of the Department of Agriculture. This article was the first of 17 publications that he generated based upon his field work, botanical and ethnological specimens, laboratory analyses, and literature from the western provinces of the USA and northern Mexico. After 1892, his contributions were archived in his private files or shared with botanical and anthropological colleagues for their specialized publications. Our contribution provides updated scientific nomenclature of the 124 plants mentioned in his 1871 article as well as examples of Palmer´s ethnobotanical observations. A diachronic comparison between the food plants registered in 1871 and those listed in subsequent ethnobotanical studies suggest that 87% of the plants continued to be consumed into the 20th century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".