MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391475417 · doi:10.5962/p.363407

Recent trends in stem numbers in Goldenseal, Hydrastis canadensis, populations at the northern limit of its range

2002· article· en· W4391475417 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adrianne Sinclair, Paul M. Catling

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersEuropean Synchrotron Radiation FacilityWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Limit (mathematics)BiologyGeographyEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent trends in stem numbers in Goldenseal, Hydrastis canadensis, populations at the northern limit of its range.Canadian Field-Naturalist 116(1): 112-115.A 15% increase in stem number occurred in 14 natural Ontario Goldenseal populations surveyed between 1998 and 2000, based on maps of stems in 1m? quadrats.Increase occurred in 10 of the 14 populations and was significant.The increase mostly involved small stems, but neither seedlings nor very small plants were observed suggesting that stem increase was largely due to vegetative reproduction by rhizomes and/or root tips.These data correspond to expectation since populations have not expanded rapidly nor spread substantially over the past few decades, but rather appear to have expanded slightly and slowly.Corresponding to earlier speculation, evidence is accumulating to suggest that substantial spreading and large population increases may be dependent on specific kinds and levels of disturbance some of which are no longer prevalent or frequent.

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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207