MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312211225 · doi:10.1038/s41477-022-01296-7

Selecting the best candidates for resurrecting extinct-in-the-wild plants from herbaria

2022· review· en· W4312211225 on OpenAlexaff
Giulia Albani Rocchetti, Angelino Carta, Andrea Mondoni, Sandrine Godefroid, Charles C. Davis, Giulia Caneva, Matthew A. Albrecht, Roxali Bijmoer, Renata Borosova, Christian Bräuchler, Elinor Breman, Marie Briggs, Stéphane Buord, Lynette H. Cave, Nílber Gonçalves da Silva, Alexandra H. Davey, Rachael M. Davies, John Dickie, Melodina Fabillo, Andreas Fleischmann, Andrew J. Franks, G. Hall, Gintaras Kantvilas, Cornelia Klak, Udayangani Liu, Leopoldo Medina, Lars Gunnar Reinhammar, R.J. Sebola, Ines Schönberger, Patrick W. Sweeney, Hermann Voglmayr, Adam Cairns White, Jan J. Wieringa, Elke Zippel, Thomas Abeli

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Plants · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerbariumBiologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)Context (archaeology)SensuGerminationTaxonBotanyGenusPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature PlantsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207