MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391502743 · doi:10.5962/p.353867

A brief history of Purple Loosestrife, Ly thrum salicaria, in Manitoba and its status in 2001

2003· article· en· W4391502743 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Cory Lindgren

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaDucks Unlimited Canada
FundersManitoba HydroSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) has become recognized as an invasive alien plant having deleterious impacts on Manitoba's natural areas.The first herbarium specimen of Purple Loosestrife was collected in 1896 near Neepawa followed by infestations in 1944 at Lockport and in 1951 in Winnipeg.As of 1991 there were 38 known populations of Purple Loosestrife in Manitoba.By the fall of 2001, there were a known 492 populations covering an estimated 5575 ha of habitat.These data indicate a 13-fold increase in the number of Purple Loosestrife infestations between 1991 and 2001 in Manitoba.The majority of Purple Loosestrife (77.6%) was found in central Manitoba infesting 4324 ha.The Netley-Libau Marsh, located in central Manitoba, accounted for 26% of all Purple Loosestrife in Manitoba.Central Manitoba (42.6%) had the majority of all Purple Loosestrife infestations followed by the city of Winnipeg (41.4%), eastern Manitoba (9.9%) and western Manitoba (6.1%).Purple Loosestrife was commonly found in roadside ditches (46%), river banks (25%) and wetland habitats (10%).Typha spp., Phalaris arundinacea and Carex spp.were commonly associated with Purple Loosestrife infestations.Infestations ranged from one plant to thousands of plants.Of the infestations surveyed, 9% had over 1000 plants while 52% had under 100 plants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207