MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W647609899

A Preliminary Survey of the Vascular Plants of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma (10 min.)

2015· article· en· W647609899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Anne Barkley

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologyFloristicsWoodlandGeographyPort (circuit theory)Flora (microbiology)GeologyEcologyPaleontologyBiologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As 80 few detaUed floristic studies have been made for any limited region ot Oklahoma (2, 6, ., and 9), it was thought that an intens'ive studY of some localized area would be of value. Pottawatomle county, which represents a rather typical sample of the more xerophytic phase of the oak-hickory woodland characteristic of the greater part of eastern Oklahoma, was chosen, and collections were made there at regular periods throughout the year 1932. Probably the first botanical exploration in Pottawatomle county, was that of Dr. Edwin James, the botanist for Major Stephen H. Long's party durinl b1s expedition to the Rocky Mountains in 1820, who collected 1,500 species on the entire expedition (4 and 11>. In 1853 a government surveJ'ina party under captain A. W. Whipple, exploring a route for a railroad from the Mlssts81pp1 River to the Pacific ocean along the thirty1Uth parallel, crossed the state from Port Smith to the Antelope Hills alona the Canadian River. Dr. J. M. Bigelow, the botanist on this expe-

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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of ScienceSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207