Shaping garden landscape with medicinal plants by migrant communities in the Atlantic Forest, Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migrants’ home gardens may be created from elements of both old and new landscapes. We assume that medicinal plant assemblages in migrants’ gardens are shaped by plant diversity and availability, therapeutic needs, and heritagization processes. Which of the factors prevail: those related to biodiversity and ecology, epidemiology, or heritage and memory? In this paper we offer new knowledge on the garden landscapes of the Global South. The research was conducted in the Atlantic Forest in Argentina. We surveyed 120 home gardens: 60 of transborder Paraguayan migrants, and 60 of transcontinental Europeans who arrived in Misiones, Argentina before WW2 and their descendants. We compared the richness, composition, medicinal uses, and the relationships of garden plants (via plant networks) between these groups, taking into account everyday scales and the transnational scale. Paraguayans cultivated and protected 137 species, predominantly native, and people of European origin 119 spp., native and exotic in similar proportions. The similarity in plant composition (68%) and the consensus in the medicinal use of plants (62%) were high between the migrant groups. Plant network analysis revealed many overlaps in assemblages of plants, but certain particularities of each group remained because of cultural expressions and therapeutic needs. This high level of similarity suggests that plant diversity, both native and allochthonous, shared concepts of illness, and the flux of knowledge between these groups was more significant than heritagization practices in shaping home gardens’ medicinal plant assemblages. People of Paraguayan and European origins do not make an active effort to convert their home gardens into heritage. Medicinal plants are connected to the lived emplacement—intimate daily practices—rather than to ethnic identity strategies. Nevertheless, the plant assemblages in gardens have been shaped by ecology, colonial legacy, nostalgia, and transfer of knowledge; therefore migrants’ home gardens can be considered heritage in a broad sense.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".