An architectural approach to the growth forms of <i>Nothofagus pumilio</i> (Nothofagaceae) along an altitudinal gradient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variations in the architecture and axis structure of different growth forms of Nothofagus pumilio (Poepp. et Endl.) Krasser (Nothofagaceae) were studied along an altitudinal gradient. We evaluated the primary growth and branching pattern of annual shoots belonging to the main axis categories (trunk, main branches, and secondary (short) branches) of four growth forms developed at different altitudes (1200–1600 m a.s.l.) in northern Patagonia: (i) low shrubs at the high-altitude timberline, (ii) high shrubs at high altitude, (iii) low trees at mid-altitude slopes, and (iv) high trees at low-altitude single-species forests. Shoot structure and branch distribution along shoots were similar for all axis categories and growth forms. Significant differences between axis categories were found regarding the sizes of shoots, which decreased from trunk to secondary/short branches. For each axis category, shoots of similar size differed between growth forms in stem slenderness and internode length. The extent of differentiation between axis categories is key in the structural distinction between growth forms of N. pumilio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".