MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136225092 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.38.7.1385

A Scanner-based Root Image Acquisition Technique for Measuring Roots on a Rhizotron Window

2003· article· en· W2136225092 on OpenAlexaff
Shufu Dong, D. Neilsen, Gerry Neilsen, Michael Weis

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerTransplantingRoot (linguistics)MalusData acquisitionComputer visionArtificial intelligenceApple treeMathematicsComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)HorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple flatbed-scanner-based image acquisition system was developed for the measurement of `Gala'/M9 ( Malus × domestica Borkh.) apple tree root growth in rhizoboxes with a transparent acrylic sheet on one side. A tree was planted in the center of each rhizobox, and a modified flatbed scanner was periodically used to directly capture high-resolution digital images of roots growing against the transparent wall. Total root length in the images was either measured manually, or by computer mouse tracing, or automatically with a computer image analysis system. Correlations were made among the different measurements. High quality root images were obtained with the adapted scanner system. Significant linear relationships were found between manual and computer traced root length measurements (r = 0.99), traced and automatic measurements (r = 0.76) and manual and automatic measurements (r = 0.75). Apple roots appeared on the transparent wall 34 days after transplanting, and grew rapidly thereafter, reaching a maximum on the transparent wall 59 days after transplanting. Our results showed that the use of a flatbed scanner for the acquisition of root images combined with computer analysis is a promising technique to speed data acquisition in root growth investigations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207