MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405111293 · doi:10.17348/jbrit.v18.i2.1379

Ferns, Spikemosses, Clubmosses, and Quillworts of Eastern North America

2024· article· en· W4405111293 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alejandra Vasco

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Geology in Latin America and Caribbean
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleasurePassionFernArchaeologyHistoryArt historyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I have had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Emily Sessa, the author of this extraordinary field guide, for over 15 years. Our paths first crossed at a field course on Tropical Ferns and Lycophytes in Costa Rica, sponsored by the Organization for Tropical Studies. Since then, we have regularly seen each other at botanical conferences, workshops, and American Fern Society meetings, among others. When I learned that Emily was embarking on the ambitious project of writing this book, I was both amazed and thrilled. Creating a comprehensive guide covering such an extensive region—from Peninsular Florida and the outer southern coastal plains to the central United States, the northern Midwest, the Northeast, and Canada—is a big task, and Emily has accomplished it with remarkable skill and dedication. In 2023, during the Botanical Society of America meetings in Boise, Idaho, Emily shared with us some of her field stories while working on the book. She even showed us some of the pages she was proofreading, and I was struck by the sheer amount of work and passion she had poured into this project. Now, holding the finished book in my hands, I can say that my excitement was well-founded.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Botanical Research Institute of TexasSame topicBotany and Geology in Latin America and CaribbeanFrench-language works237,207