Phenotyping the kinematics of leaf development in flowering plants: recommendations and pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaves of flowering plants are produced from the shoot apical meristem at regular intervals and they grow according to a developmental program that is determined by both genetic and environmental factors. Detailed frameworks for multiscale dynamic analyses of leaf growth have been developed in order to identify and interpret phenotypic differences caused by either genetic or environmental variations. They revealed that leaf growth dynamics are non-linearly and nonhomogeneously distributed over the lamina, in the leaf tissues and cells. The analysis of the variability in leaf growth, and its underlying processes, has recently gained momentum with the development of automated phenotyping platforms that use various technologies to record growth at different scales and at high throughput. These modern tools are likely to accelerate the characterization of gene function and the processes that underlie the control of shoot development. Combined with powerful statistical analyses, trends have emerged that may have been overlooked in low throughput analyses. However, in many examples, the increase in throughput allowed by automated platforms has led to a decrease in the spatial and/or temporal resolution of growth analyses. Concrete examples presented here indicate that simplification of the dynamic leaf system, without consideration of its spatial and temporal context, can lead to important misinterpretations of the growth phenotype.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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".