MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6950536057 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4907065

Gagea (sect. Dschungaricae) Levichev

2011· article· en· W6950536057 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedicelInflorescenceGenusSection (typography)Sister groupPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gagea sect. Dschungaricae Levichev This small section with c. 3 species was described in Peterson et al. (2008) to encompass those species having a branched inflorescence with alternate phyllotaxis (for a detailed morphological character data, see Peterson et al. 2008). The only member of this section included in analyses of nrITS and plastid sequences in Peterson et al. (2008), G. dschungarica, is sister to species of G. sect. Stipitatae in our studies. It was placed in G. sect. Monophyllos Pascher subsection Minimae Pascher by Stroh (1937), which is also sister to G. kunawurensis (= G. sect. Stipitatae) in analyses conducted by Zarrei et al. (2009). Pedicel anatomy (type II) is shared by G. dschungarica and G. kunawurensis. However, basal leaf anatomy (type II) in G. dschungarica is similar to that of G. lutea. and G. confusa. Gagea dschungarica has been grouped with G. caroli-kochii and G. bulbifera because of its microreticulate pollen type (Zarrei & Zarre 2005). However, G. dschungarica has morphological characters distinct from G. kunawurensis and related taxa. Thus, establishment of a new section is not appropriate, and it should be placed in a more broadly defined section that includes all members in clade D in Figure 4 of Zarrei et al. (2009).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicGlobal Health Workforce Issues→French-language works237,207→