MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W835132652

Nomenclature of Gentianopsis Crinita (Gentianaceae)

2007· article· hr· W835132652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James S. Pringle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association · 2007
Typearticle
Languagehr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentianaceaeNomenclatureBiologyGeographyBotanyTaxonomy (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The name Gentiana crinita Froel.and its homotypic synonyms are neotypified by a specimen of the greater or wide-leaved fringed gentian of eastern North America, consistent with the long-established use of the specific epithet.The greater or wide-leaved fringed gentian, which is native from Georgia north to Maine and Manitoba, was known historically as Gentiana crinita Froel.and is now called Gentianopsis crinita (Froel.)Ma.From a study by Fernald (1923; recently noted by Jarvis 2007), however, it has sometimes been suspected that the epithet crinita might correctly be applicable, instead, to Victorin's gentian, which was originally described as Gentiana victorinii Fernald and is now called Gentianopsis virgata subsp.victorinii (Fernald) Lammers.The latter is endemic to the intertidal flats of the St. Lawrence estuary near Québec City.With research on typification having been stimulated by the Linnaean Plant Names Typification Project, the Flora of North America North of Mexico, and the compilation of databases on type specimens at major herbaria, uncertainty as to the correct name of G. crinita should be resolved, lest the nomenclature of this well-known and much-admired species be disrupted unnecessarily.Gentianopsis crinita, as Gentiana crinita, was the first North American species of the fringed gentians to be recognized taxonomically.Froelich (1796) distinguished this species from the European Gentiana ciliata L. [Gentianopsis ciliata (L.) Ma] by its greater plant size, basally clasping, lanceolate rather than linear leaves, larger and more numerous flowers, dimorphic calyx lobes, and corolla lobes fringed all around rather than only proximally.The description suffices to distinguish Gentianopsis crinita s. str.from all other North American taxa of Gentianopsis as well as from G. ciliata.Froelich doubtless based his description of Gentiana crinita on specimens, because no such detailed description is present in either of the two publications he cited.In the synonymy of G. crinita, he listed "Gentiana ciliata.LINN.syst.pl. 1. p. 645.n. 17. var.americana" [fonts and punctuation as in original].If the name Gentiana ciliata var.americana L. had previously been validly published, Froelich's citation of it as part of the basis of his G. crinita would necessitate consideration the identity of the plant so named by Linnaeus.Froelich also cited "Gentiana auctumnalis [sic] secunda," number 50 in Colden's (1749-1751) list of native plants in the vicinity of Newburgh, New York, a work that antedates the

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Abraham Lincoln AssociationSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207