MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088499568 · doi:10.1139/b10-008

Clouds and cloud immersion alter photosynthetic light quality in a temperate mountain cloud forest

2010· article· en· W2088499568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keith Reinhardt, William K. Smith, Gregory A. Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstoryCanopyEnvironmental scienceSunlightAtmospheric sciencesPhotosynthesisBiologyTemperate climateCloud forestCloud coverPhotosynthetically active radiationEcologyCloud computingBotanyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light quantity and quality strongly influence plant ecophysiology, especially in cloud forests. Only a few studies have investigated the quantitative effects of clouds on incident sunlight, and almost no studies have explored the specific effects of cloud immersion on light quality. In the present study, the spectral quantity and quality of sunlight during sunny (S), low cloud (LC), and cloud immersed (CI) days in open canopy and understory microsites are compared in high elevation cloud forests in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Cumulative daily radiation measured on CI days was 85% less than on S days at open sites, but about the same as S days in understory sites. LC and CI conditions enhanced blue light by 5%–15% in open sites, but decreased it by 25%–60% in understory sites. In cloudy conditions, red light decreased by 6%–11% in open areas and increased by 25%–30% in understory sites. Cloudiness also resulted in important changes in spectral band ratios, and was associated with light diffusivity. Thus, cloud regimes had a strong influence on the photosynthetic light quality of incident sunlight.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207