Report of the Registration Committee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Registration Committee was established at the Nomenclature Section of the XIX International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Shenzhen, China in 2017. It followed the previous Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils). A clear majority of Registration Committee members support having named taxa associated with a unique universal digital identifier in order to secure and facilitate the exchange of information by electronic means. However, discussions within the Committee showed that mandatory referencing of a unique universal digital identifier was not a solution. The Committee recommends that authors provide nomenclatural repositories with a reference to an actual and current publication for indexing purposes, or to register voluntarily.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.133 | 0.125 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".