Net assimilation rate, specific leaf area and leaf mass ratio: which is most closely correlated with relative growth rate? A meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Data were compiled consisting of 1240 observations (614 species) from 83 different experiments published in 37 different studies, in order to quantify the relative importance of net assimilation rate (NAR, g cm −2 day −1 ), specific leaf area (SLA, cm 2 g −1 ) and leaf mass ratio (LMR, g g −1 ) in determining relative growth rate (RGR, g g −1 day −1 ), and how these change with respect to daily quantum input (DQI, moles m −2 day −1 ) and growth form (herbaceous or woody). Each of ln(NAR), ln(SLA) and ln(LMR) were separately regressed on ln(RGR) using mixed model regressions in order to partition the between‐experiment and within‐experiment variation in slopes and intercepts. DQI and plant type were then added to these models to see if they could explain some of the between‐experiment variation in the relative importance of each growth component. LMR was never strongly related to RGR. In general, NAR was the best general predictor of variation in RGR. However, for determining RGR the importance of NAR decreased, and the importance of SLA increased, with decreasing daily quantum input in experiments containing herbaceous species. This did not occur in experiments involving woody species.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it