MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7068841123

Indiangrass

2004· article· en· W7068841123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Research and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorghumGenusContext (archaeology)PopulationIndigenous
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The indiangrasses belong to the genus Sorghastrum. The name Sorghastrum comes from Sorghum and the Latin suffix astrum (a poor imitation of), indicating the resemblance to Sorghum (Gould, 1975). The genus consists of approximately 20 species, primarily in tropical and subtropical Africa and the Americas (Watson and Dallwitz, 1992). Eight species and one subspecies are identified in the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN, 2003), with distributional ranges from Canada, the USA, Cuba, Mexico, South America, and tropical Africa. In North America, indiangrass [Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash], slender indiangrass [S. elliottii (c. Mohr) Nash], and lopsided indiangrass [S. secundum (Elliott) Nash] are indigenous (Hitchcock, 1971). Indiangrass is the most important and widely distributed of the Sorghastrum species, with slender indiangrass and lopsided indiangrass limited to the southeastern USA (Hitchcock, 1971; Sutherland, 1986; Diggs et aI., 1999). There is some disagreement in the literature concerning the botanical name for indiangrass. Baum (1967) believes that indiangrass should be classified as S. avenaceum (Michx.) Nash, but Gould (1975) and Sutherland (1986) indicate that S. nutans (L.) Nash is correct. Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash will be used in this chapter as the correct botanical name, based on the classification of Gould (1975) and Sutherland (1986), and will focus on it because of its prominence and broad distribution.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.389 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicMedical Research and PracticesFrench-language works237,207