MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376506954 · doi:10.56588/iabcd.v2i1.120

THE REVIEW ON ETHNO-BOTANICAL CONCEPT, HISTORY AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES OF INDIA AND ITS THREATS

2023· article· en· W4376506954 on OpenAlexaff
Kajal Katara, Kruti Chaudhari, Himanshu Pandya, Bharat Maitreya

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Association of Biologicals and Computational Digest · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnobotanyTraditional knowledgeIndigenousGeographyEthnic groupMedicinal plantsTraditional medicineEthnologySocial scienceAnthropologySociologyEcologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparatively a newer discipline, ethnobotany examines the various rules that govern interactions between people and plant. People have been associated with plants since time immemorial and dependent for their various uses such as food, fodder, and medicine. Ethnobotany is the study of the utilitarian relationship between people and plant in their surroundings, as well as medicinal uses. This ethnobotanical study is providing the information of ethnobotany, concept, Historical background, traditional knowledge and threats of ethnobotany. This paper focuses on the ethnobotanical researches of India and Gujarat. In India, 500 networks with 227 different Ethnic groups were home to about 7500 different kinds of ethnomedicinal plants. Gujarat has a variety of vegetation in ethnobotany. This paper rise concern on loses of Traditional knowledge and plants varieties are destroyed by the knowledge loss and development of tribal human life.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Association of Biologicals and Computational DigestSame topicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesFrench-language works237,207