Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deserts of the world have particular significance for plant physiological ecologists.In deserts, the influence of abiotic factors over structure and function is enhanced relative to biotic factors, making it relatively easy to identify the environmental significance of many features of desert plants.Deserts thus have been a proving ground for developing theories and techniques in physiological ecology, and many if not most of the leading figures in the field have at some point spent time in ''the desert.''In recognition of the recent advances in desert ecology and physiology, the publisher Springer has produced 20 short books in a series entitled Adaptations of desert organisms.Seven of the titles address major advances in desert plant biology, with three focusing on the physiological ecology of desert plants.Of these, the Physiological ecology of North American desert plants by Stan Smith, Russ Monson, and Jay Anderson warrants special attention, as it attempts an integrated synthesis of leading theories and research advances in physiological ecology.This review will focus on Physiological ecology of North American desert plants, after a brief discussion of the other six plant biology books in the Adaptations of desert organisms series.These six titles are fairly specialized, addressing germination biology (Seed germination in desert plants, Y. Guttermann, 1993, 253 pages), mineral nutrition (Mineral
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.459 | 0.327 |
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".