FIG.1 in A Revised Sectional Classification of Plukenetia L. (Euphorbiaceae, Acalyphoideae) with Four New Species from South America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FIG.1. Summary cladogram of the relationships recovered by Bayesian analysis of combined and partitioned ETS, ITS, KEA1 introns 11 and 17, TEB exon 17, matK, and ndhF DNA sequence data of Plukenetia and Romanoa (modified from Cardinal-McTeague et al. 2019a), highlighting our revised sectional classification of Plukenetia. Maximum parsimony bootstrap percentage (MPBP) and Bayesian posterior probability (BPP) support values> 50% are indicated on each branch. Branches in bold indicate strong support ($ 85 MPBP and $ 0.95 BPP). Subclade numbering system (P1–P5) follows Cardinal-McTeague and Gillespie (2016). Sections in the pinnately veined clade (P1 + P2) are indicated by light grey boxes, sections in the palmately veined clade (P3–P5) by dark grey boxes; new species are indicated in bold. A–B. Leaf clearings demonstrating leaf architecture (images from Gillespie 1993). A. P. stipellata, Gillespie 413 US. B. P. supraglandulosa, Granville 3626 CAY. C–D. Scanning electron micrographs demonstrating pollen tectum morphology (images from Gillespie 1994). C. P. stipellata, Gillespie 418 DAV. D. P. loretensis, Maguire & Politi 27371 US.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".