MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385569344 · doi:10.17348/jbrit.v17.i1.1301

Seed banks of rare Physostegia correllii (Lamiaceae) in Lady Bird Lake, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.

2023· article· en· W4385569344 on OpenAlexaff
Beth A. Middleton, Casey R. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsAg-West Bio (Canada)
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsThreatened speciesSeedlingGerminationFloodplainVegetation (pathology)EcologyGeographyRare speciesBiologyHabitatAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rare species threatened by climate and land-use change may harbor seeds in soil seed banks for periods of time even if adults have disappeared from the site. Soil samples were collected from sites with current Phyostegia correllii populations and from sites with former populations in Lady Bird Lake (a reservoir of the Colorado River, Austin, Texas. A seedling emergence study was conducted under greenhouse conditions, and the presence/absence of seedling emergence was recorded for two years. Seeds germinated from the seed banks of all current and former colonies tested. The presence of seed banks in a historical site (Blunn Creek) of Physostegia correllii suggests that management to encourage the germination of seeds might help to encourage the establishment of populations of this species. The re-establishment of disturbance fugitives might be facilitated by removing overhanging ground vegetation or imposing water management regimes that mimic natural floodplain dynamics.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Botanical Research Institute of TexasSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207