MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128394530 · doi:10.5962/p.297330

Systematics and biology of the southern Western Australian Centrolepidaceae

2005· article· W7128394530 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory John Keighery

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Australian naturalist · 2005
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematicsBiogeographyPhylogeneticsTaxonomy (biology)Variation (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Centrolepidaceae are a small Family of 33 species distributed in four genera A phelia, Brizula, Centrolepis and Gaimardia.The genera Hydatella and Trithuria were until recently also considered members of this family, but are now placed in a segregate family, the Hydatellaceae.Members of the two families differ markedly in their biology.Members of the Hydatellaceae are true submerged aquatics (usually ephemeral in life history), whereas the Centrolepidaceae are wetland or terrestrial plants.Dioecy and unisexual inflorescences are common in the Hydatellaceae and not in Centrolepidaceae.Seed dispersal is often by seeds being held on the plant by Cenrolepidaceae but liberated by Hydatellaceae.Apomixis and obligate outbreeding occurs in Hydatellaceae, modal outbreeding, inbreeding/self fertility are found in the Centrolepidaceae.Many of the distinguishing characters between the families are related to these differences in basic biology.Recently the genera A phelia and Brizula have again been merged but inflorescence structure strongly suggests that these genera should remain separate.In terms of its members' biology and morphology the family has little in common with the Jointed Sedges (Restionaceae).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Australian naturalistSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207