Guidelines for measuring and reporting environmental parameters for experiments in greenhouses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of appropriate, accurate measurement and reporting of environmental parameters in plant sciences is a significant aspect of quality assurance for all researchers and their research. There is a clear need for ensuring research across the world can be compared, understood and where necessary replicated by fellow researchers. A common set of guidelines to educate, assist and encourage comparativeness is of great importance. On the other hand, the level of effort and attention to detail by an individual researcher should be commensurate with the particular research being conducted. For example, a researcher focusing on interactions of light and temperature should measure all relevant parameters and report a measurement summary that includes sufficient detail allowing for replication. Such detail may be less relevant when the impact of environmental parameters on plant growth and development is not the main research focus. However, it should be noted that the environmental experience of a plant during production can have significant impact when subsequent experiments investigate plants at a molecular, biochemical or genetic level or where species interactions are considered. Thus, researchers are encouraged to make a critical assessment of what parameters are of primary importance in their research and these parameters should be measured and reported. CONTENT: This paper brings together a collection of parameters that the authors, as members of International Committee on Controlled Environment Guidelines (ICCEG) in consultation with members of our three parent organizations, believe constitute those which should be recorded and reported when publishing scientific data from experiments in greenhouses. It provides recommendations to end users on when, how and where these parameters should be measured along with the appropriate internationally standardized units that should be used.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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