MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085500944 · doi:10.1139/b99-103

La pousse courte, un indicateur du degré de maturation chez le hêtre (<i>Fagus sylvatica</i>L.)

2000· article· en· W2085500944 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Éric Nicolini, Bernard Chanson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeechFagus sylvaticaJuvenileBiologyShadow (psychology)Tree (set theory)BotanyOntogenyEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In beech, no external morphological characters that allow an understanding of how an individual stem gradually and continuously evolves from a juvenile vegetative stage toward a mature flowering stage, has ever been demonstrated. The only known traits are marcescence, indicating a juvenile stage, and flowering, indicating passage to adult stage. However, in young trees growing under a forest shadow, these markers are not visible since marcescence is not expressed and the trees are too young to flower. This study was conducted to find one or more external morphological characters that indicate the state of differentiation in beech. For that purpose, a simultaneous description of tree architecture and the short, 1-year-old, foliated growth units (u.c.) of the trees was completed. Analysis showed that the morphology of short u.c.'s evolved according to their localization in the plant, the age of the plant, and the environment where in which it is developping. Analysis also revealed that this evolution was directly related to growth in height of trees, but also and above all, to the degree of complexity reached during the trees' development. Thus, evolution of short u.c.'s is a scale on which some traits expressing internal plant potentialities (marcescence, flowering) can be localized.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations23
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207