MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039584102 · doi:10.1139/b04-132

Leaf thickness of<i>Salix</i>spp. (Salicaceae) from the Athabasca sand dunes of northern Saskatchewan, Canada

2004· article· en· W2039584102 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Ranessa L. Cooper, Jasmine V. Ware, David D. Cass

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSalicaceaeBotanyBiologySand dune stabilizationWillowWoody plantEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaf thicknesses of Salix taxa (Salix brachycarpa Nutt. var. psammophila Raup, Salix planifolia Pursh subsp. tyrrellii (Raup) Argus, Salix silicicola Raup, and Salix turnorii Raup) from the Athabasca sand dunes in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, were evaluated and compared with those of their respective widespread progenitors (S. brachycarpa Nutt. var. brachycarpa, S. planifolia Pursh subsp. planifolia, Salix alaxensis (Anders.), and Salix eriocephala Michx. var. famelica (C. R. Ball) Dorn). Leaf thickness was measured using standard light microscopy, and results were compared with the occurrence of amphistomaty in these Salix species. Leaf thickness values varied among the species and differed significantly within each derivative–progenitor Salix pair. The two amphistomatic taxa from Yakow Lake dunes, S. turnorii and S. planifolia subsp. tyrrellii, had significantly thicker leaves (337.65 ± 5.99 µm and 226.00 ± 5.22 µm, respectively) than their widespread progenitors, as well as the thickest leaves overall. The data comparison indicates a relationship between amphistomaty and leaf thickness among the Salix taxa, as thicker leaves tend to be amphistomatic.Key words: amphistomaty, Athabasca sand dunes, leaf thickness, Salix, willow.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207