A standardized protocol for the determination of specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.288
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.999
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.130 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Summary The impact of sample preparation, rehydration procedure and time of collection on the determination of specific leaf area (SLA, the ratio of leaf area to leaf dry mass) and leaf dry matter content (LDMC, the ratio of leaf dry mass to fresh mass) of mature leaves was studied in three wild species growing in the field, chosen for their contrasting SLA and LDMC. Complete rehydration was achieved 6 h after samples were placed into water, but neither of the procedures tested – preparation of samples before rehydration or temperature applied during rehydration – had a significant effect on the final values of SLA or LDMC. As expected, water‐saturated leaves had a lower LDMC than non‐rehydrated leaves; more surprisingly, their SLA was also higher. The impact of rehydration on SLA was especially important when the SLA of the species was high. There was no significant effect of time of sampling on either trait in any species over the time period covered (09·00–16·30 h). These results suggest that SLA and LDMC obtained on water‐saturated leaves (SLA SAT and LDMC SAT ) can be used for species comparisons. We propose a standardized protocol for the measurement of these traits. This would allow for better consistency in data collection, a prerequisite for the constitution of large databases of functional traits.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Functional Ecology
- Topic
- Leaf Properties and Growth Measurement
- Field
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- Université de Sherbrooke
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Specific leaf areaBiologyDry matterDry weightDehydrationLeaf sizeBotanyHorticultureAgronomyPhotosynthesis
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes