Plagiothecium curvifolium var. recurvum G. J. Wolski & W. R. Buck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plagiothecium curvifolium var. recurvum (Warnst.) G. J. Wolski & W. R. Buck, PLoS ONE 17 (11): e 0275665. 2020. ≡ Plagiothecium denticulatum var. recurvum Warnst., Verhandlungen des Botanischen Vereins für die Provinz Brandenburg und die Angrenzenden Länder 27: 73. 1885. Lectotype (designated by Wolski et al. 2022 a): Germany, prov. Brandenburg, auf nacktem Bodem in Kiefernschonungen vor Altruppin, Neuruppin, C. Warnstorf, JE 04004201! Isolectotypes: G! = Plagiothecium curvifolium var. hypnophyllum Ukrainskaya, Novosti Sistematiki Nizaikh Rastenii 31: 183, f. 12–14. 1996. Type: [Russia,] Prov. Mosquensis, distr. Krasnogorskensis, 2 km ad austro-occidentem a Krasnogorsk. Ad Betulam in silva, 28 VII 1986, Ignatov. In herbario bryologico Horti Botanici Publici Mosquae conservatur, MHA, VLA! Description. Plants medium-sized, bright-green to green; stems 1.5–2.0 cm long; leaves complanate, strongly asymmetrical, hooked, lanceolate, concave, curved towards the ground, 1.7–2.2 × 0.6–0.9 mm (Fig. 9 B); margin sometimes incurved; the apex acuminate, usually denticulate by 2–3 teeth; cells linear-vermicular, 60–120 × 7–9 μm at midleaf (Fig. 9 D), cell areolation tight; decurrencies forming semi-distinct auricles, of 2–3 rows of rectangular, sometimes inflated cells; capsules inclined. Distribution. Asia (Russia); Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden); North America (Canada).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".