Rare plants at the extreme of distribution: broadly and narrowly distributed rare species. Biodiversity and Conservation 14
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The flora of North America north of Mexico was used to study rare species at the two extremes of geographic distribution: endemic species, those with large local populations but small geographic ranges, and suffusively rare species, those with small local populations but large geographic ranges. The taxonomic distribution, geographic distribution, and life history characteristics of the two groups were compared. Only 2 % of North American species are suffusively rare, while 22.6 % of species are endemic to one state or province. Suffusively rare species are significantly more likely to be seedless vascular plants and monocots than expected, and are less likely to be eudicots. Conversely, endemic species are more likely to be eudicots, and less likely to be monocots. Suffusively rare species are most abundant in Canada and the northeastern United States, whereas there are few endemic species in those areas. The highest proportions of endemic species are found in California, Florida, and Texas. Wetland habitats support many suffusively rare species, but few endemic species. Neither are common in alpine habitats. Suffusively rare and endemic species also differ in the dominant growth form. Suffusively rare species are most likely to be herbaceous eudicots, and less likely to be shrubs or shrub-herbs. Endemic species are also likely to be herbaceous, but are also frequently shrubs. A high proportion of endemic species exhibit plasticity in growth form, whereas few suffusively rare species have plastic growth forms. While both groups contain rare species, they differ considerably in geographic distribution and life history traits.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".