New for RBG and Halton Region. Determined by
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2002 was a busy year for new records here at the Royal Botanical Gardens Herbarium (HAM). Over the course of the field season we collected or processed a wide variety of plant species that were new for City of Hamilton, Halton Region, Royal Botanical Gardens or even Ontario. The following list refers to 2002 collections (with some earlier collections mentioned) that are from new sites for the species in question. These records are all represented by specimens at HAM. Other significant Hamilton records that were not linked to a specimen are not listed, but were entered into the Nature Counts database. Similarly, collec-tions from previously known sites (even if the sites were vague, such as “Beverly Swamp”) are not listed, even if the species is regionally significant. The majority of the new records listed are for species not historically native to the Hamilton area (these non-natives are marked with a *), but there are also new native records. Species listed as “New for City of Hamilton ” are those that are not listed in Goodban (1995). There may be post-1995 records for some of these species of which I am unaware. Species listed as “New for Halton Region ” are those that are not listed in Varga et al (2000), and those listed as “New for RBG ” are not listed on T.W.Smith’s draft RBG Checklist as of the beginning of 2002. Species listed as new for Ontario are those not listed in Newmaster et al (1998). New records for RBG are interesting as they likely reflect species that have arrived at RBG post-Tamsalu, since Tamsalu’s 1950s RBG collections were exceptionally extensive.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.212 | 0.083 |
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".