MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989861126 · doi:10.1139/x04-027

Seasonal patterns of fine-root production and mortality in <i>Prunus avium</i> in Scotland

2004· article· en· W1989861126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. A. Baddeley, Christine Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrunusBiologyHorticultureBotanyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seasonal pattern of root dynamics in Prunus avium (L.) L. (wild cherry) was determined using mini rhizotron observations of the production and disappearance of individual roots over a 2-year period at a site in northeast Scotland. The largest percentage of observed root appearance and disappearance took place at a depth of 10 cm (34%) compared with approximately 20% at each of three lower depths down to 30 cm. Of the 37 574 roots·m–2 produced in total over the 2-year observation period, some 78% disappeared during the study. Over 90% of new root production occurred between March and October. Root production was highest in June 1998 (2263 roots·m–2) and lowest in January of 1998 and 1999 (31 roots·m–2). Combination of these data with counts of root disappearance showed that there was a net increase in root numbers per tree between March and June. From June onwards, the rate of root disappearance exceeded the rate of production. Thus, any annual increase in the number of roots depended upon a short period of major root production in late spring – early summer.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207